Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, [[Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/|]].Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

Notability

@Robofish: In July 2015, you added the {{notability}} tag to this article. Is this article likely to be deleted because of its perceived lack of notability? Jarble (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that it's in a sort of inbetween notability, to be honest. The coverage for this guy is pretty extensive, but reviews for his work have been fairly short. If it ever gets deleted I won't be entirely surprised, but I will be disappointed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to take it to AFD straightaway, because as you say it's a borderline case. But I'm not convinced he's really notable enough for a Wikipedia biography - a lot of passing mentions in a short space of time don't necessarily add up to notability. I'll come back and take another look at it in a few months, and if nothing's changed I'll consider taking it to AFD for wider views. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing mentions? Most of the citations provided are articles written entirely about him. You can try your luck at AfD, but I'll vote to keep it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

I have strongly opposed the use of Reddit interviews in the past, but this interview is somewhat interesting, if only because it presents a "no, it's all real" perspective on Chuck Tingle. I don't know if this perspective is echoed anywhere in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The interview has been validated (in a sense) by The Guardian, which cites it as a source of information.[1] I've added a reference to it to the article, presenting it as an interview that happened, rather than as a source of Fact. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo nomination

@DragonflySixtyseven: @NinjaRobotPirate: Hey guys, just giving you a head's up that last month Vox Day published his Rabid Puppies list, where he's telling his followers to nominate Tingle for best short story. The chance of vandalism or attempts to add this to the article are relatively slim at this point, but still possible, especially if by some chance Tingle does actually receive the nomination. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tokyogirl79: Check this page's history, actually. DS (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page history was what made me look up the Hugo nomination assertion. Of course the thing about that is that anyone can be nominated for a Hugo if they've written within the specific area and they have one of the Worldcon members willing to throw their name into the ring. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tingle has made the finalist list for the Hugo.[2] Kelly hi! 19:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this nomination success, is there still any question about notability? 74.12.94.137 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Being a puppy candidate is no measure of quality or notability. Sadly the nominations for Hugos have been skewed since the puppies started their campaign. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figure I'll give a little more explanation to this: Wikipedia only considers a few awards to be the type that would give partial or complete notability. (Partial means that it would go towards notability but not completely satisfy requirements whereas complete would.) The Hugos are still considered to be the type that would give complete notability. However the problem is that Wikipedia only counts awards towards notability if the nominee wins the award. Nominations by themselves do not give any level of notability, regardless of the notability of the award. However the more notable the award is, the more likely it will be that the nominee will gain coverage, especially if the nomination is even remotely controversial. The only catch is that the coverage needs to focus predominantly on Tingle rather than on the Puppies themselves, as most of the coverage out there tends to mention him in passing in order to focus on the Puppies' nominations slate. There are some like this, but interviews are always kind of up for debate on Wikipedia as to whether they're a primary source or a secondary one. In this situation it's a little more difficult since Tingle's interviews are well, unique to say the least. However all that aside, I'd say that Tingle meets notability guidelines for authors. The coverage isn't the most solid or greatest, but I think that it's enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-added the content about Zoe Quinn accepting his award for him. This is pretty relevant, considering that multiple outlets have reported on this. ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) Even Vox Day has reflected on it here, so it's fairly relevant considering that it was Day's actions that got the guy nominated, so it's worth mentioning. It probably doesn't need an entire subsection at this point in time (it'd need a lot more than what it has now), but a single sentence wouldn't be undue weight and the content is relevant. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Seems relevant to me. It's not like this is being sourced to Twitter – independent reliable sources have explicitly commented on it. It's interesting to see that Tingle is getting so much press over this. I think this pretty much settles the question of notability once and for all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's undue weight on something that hasn't actually happened yet, but I don't care enough to continue disputing it. Bear in mind, though, that Tingle's public persona is just master-class trolling; the article doesn't need to become an echo chamber for it. But, yes, it's good to see quality sources added regardless. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty aware of that, but it's been reported on often enough in a serious enough tone to add. On a side note, I do have to admire Tingle for not only sticking with the persona but also remaining active. There have been others that have written works like this (ie, ones that shouldn't be taken seriously at all) but few have remained active beyond 3-4 works or a year. (I'm specifically thinking of Kitty Glitter. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Imho it's relevant by Wikipedia standards since there's nontrivial secondary sourcing for it, and it's relevant by common sense standards since readers following the Puppy vs Hugo saga are likely to consider it significant. I don't know that we need the Tingle article in the first place but if we have it, imho the article would be deficient without this info. So it should stay in. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factual articles

Here is an article about Tingle in The Guardian. Kelly hi! 07:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not ashamed to say that I love reading anything related to Tingle. He's probably one of the best things to happen to the self-published erotica world. I'll see what I can add to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Here's a more recent article in Vox that delves more deeply into the possibilities about the identity of the author(s). Brhiba (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed PROD

@Montanabw: I've removed the PROD since there is enough here to assert notability, enough to where this should at least go through AfD. Tingle is admittedly a novelty and I had my concerns earlier on, however I think that there's enough now to where he would just barely squeak by notability guidelines, especially with the coverage he got in the wake of the Hugo Award nomination. He got it because of a campaign to rig the Hugos and was included in their list as a lark, but the Hugo Award is still considered major in the industry and his nomination did gain some coverage in places like The Guardian. It would admittedly be by the skin of his anonymous teeth, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that some of the news articles are written tongue in cheek, but some of them are relatively serious in tone and it's over a relatively decent amount of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information

This article in The Guardian is currently cited, as well as mentioned above. It makes mention of a Reddit AMA in which Chuck Tingle's son Jon revealed personal details about his father—that he is an autistic savant and schizophrenic—and the same details are also in an August 26 article on Literary Hub. I was about to use the second to state as factual that he lives in Billings, Montana, which we currently have unreferenced and as a "presented as", an instance of WP:CLAIM, but after reading the earlier reference, which I had not seen until I saw it mentioned above, I think I'd better hold off and see whether people more experienced in the nuances of WP:BLP and WP:RS than I am think we now have enough grounds to include the autism and schizophrenia; because if we do, we probably should include them. They've now been presented as important facts about him in two third-party reports, not just in Reddit AMAs. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both third-party reports are quoting or referring directly to the AMA, however, so all they're really confirming is that the son said it, not that it's true. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What can you even call "true" about a fictional character? We can take from the AMA what we can get and say that Tingle, as a fictionous character, is described as schitzophrenic, etc. Lordtobi (✉) 23:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about a fictional character. It is an article about a pseudonymous author, who is a real person (as proven by the fact that his books exist). Some statements about this person may be be true. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian says they don't know what to believe, and he may be a work of performance art. The reddit interview can't be used as an authoritative source about Tingle's true identity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a more recent article in Vox that delves more deeply into several possibilities about the identity of the author(s). This adds helpful context to the above, but doesn't offer any particular resolution to the questions raised. Brhiba (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the same model as Lemony Snicket. --occono (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really analogous, because there's a clear distinction between Daniel Handler (whom we know to be real) and Lemony Snicket (whom we know to be fictional). Tingle is apparently a real person, about whom some of our information is fictional. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

At what point do individual items in the subject's bibliography cease to be noteworthy? With an average output of a couple items per month, this seems well on its way to becoming a list article that simply parrots Tingle's Amazon page. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm going to BOLD-ly remove the list of short stories, there are far too many to list them all here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree 1,000%. I started this account for the sole purpose of protesting this when I saw it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of information and information like that is what I want to see. Ksmst12 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to have a discussion first, also given that some of the short stories are even more notable than novels (and frequently covered in RSes). Lordtobi (✉) 08:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ksmst12: From What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It doesn't list things just because they exist; it has standards of notability, such as third parties referring to them. If reliable sources are talking about some of these stories, by all means mention those in the article. But indiscriminately listing every item he has ever published is not what Wikipedia is for: that's what Amazon is for. Additionally, the listing of specific publication dates in various formats is of dubious value to anyone (beyond those who enjoy having data for the sake of having data.... again, that's what the original source of the data is for). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I hear some policy-based arguments for keeping the exhaustive bibliography, I'm going to remove it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it again. We should only list his most prominent works. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it. Tingle's bibliography is the primary item of interest. It's one of the primary reasons people come to the page. Deleting it is vandalism. If for some reason you don't like it being on the main page, create a separate page for it and link. Until then, stop vandalizing the page. Gerntrash (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the "vandalism" attacks. Several editors have expressed the opinion that it's pointless and excessive, and the only counter-arguments have amounted to "I want it"... but less civil. "It's one of the primary reasons people come to the page" and "that is what the majority of people are looking for" are not facts; they're assumptions based on no evidence. And if people were coming here for that, we could – and should – direct them to the primary source. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no stable primary source. Amazon's listings are not permanent nor are they sorted into any kind of order (novels vs. short stories vs. compilations vs. other). This information is useful. If you don't like the format, find a better format but there is no reason to delete this kind of information. Else you'll have to delete every bibliography of every author on Wikipedia. Enough with the deletionism. Gerntrash (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a deletionist any more than I'm a vandal (check my history: 20K+ edits, the majority of which added content). @Susmuffin: and @Power~enwiki: are both major contributors too. And by contrast you probably aren't in favor of indiscriminately cramming WP full of whatever data will fit. The goal is find a reasonable balance, right?
It isn't true that "every author on Wikipedia" has a complete list of every work they've ever published along with dates of release. Especially for those who are very prolific, the articles summarize or focus on the most noteworthy examples. And even if there are articles like that, that doesn't make it a good idea: maybe those need editing down too.
So, explain to us: how is it useful? This page is viewed by several thousand people a month, and I find it difficult to believe that they're "primarily" or "a majority" coming here to see all of his titles listed with dates... rather than coming here to learn who he is, what he does, if he's real... which are otherwise the focus of the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "every author on Wikipedia has a complete list of every work they've ever published" -- I made no such claim. To insinuate it is intellectually dishonest. And it is true I'm also not "in favor of indiscriminately cramming WP full of whatever data will fit." That's a classic straw man fallacy. Thousands of people view the page each month because it is a good page with good information. The bibliography has been there for a long time and many people have added to it. There is no good reason to delete this particular bibliography. Gerntrash (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) You declared that "every bibliography of every author on Wikipedia" was like this one and would have to be deleted if we deleted this or trimmed it to just noteworthy items. 2) I assumed that you don't believe that nonsense about "cramming", so it wasn't a straw-man; it was an attempt to find common ground. 3) And I asked a legitimate question, which I'll repeat: how is this data dump useful, and to whom? (And how do you know this?)
As for random visitors adding to it: when people see something like this (especially people without much history contributing to the site), they tend to assume that this is what Wikipedia is for (the "cramming" thing), and "helpfully" add more of the same. That's how articles accumulate cruft, and that's why part of editing is also exercising judgment about what to leave out. And in my judgment (and that of some other experienced editors) this database has gotten out of hand. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
>"You declared that 'every bibliography of every author on Wikipedia' was like this one" -- Stop lying about me, sir. That is rude, unnecessary, and unhelpful. Is there a place to report slander? Gerntrash (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for "how is it useful"? It is useful because the information in this format exists nowhere else. It's useful because it is information that people are interested in. As I mentioned, The bibliography has been there for a long time and many people have added to it. There is no good reason to delete this particular bibliography. As many people have added to it, it is obviously of interest. Gerntrash (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments about keeping/editing/deleting list of self-published works

From time to time, as the "Bibliography" section has grown to dominate the article (due to the author sometimes releasing several new items each month), editors have suggested/executed removal of it, or editing it for noteworthiness. Other editors have objected to this, and restored it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as relevant content but it could be put in a collapsible list if agreed Atlantic306 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This particular compiled information is unique. It is also obviously of interest. If a different format is more useful, that's fine. Gerntrash (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In an article about an author we should not be talking about removing the bibliography! Instead, it should be done in the standard bibliography format, i.e. as a list not a table. This will be far more compact. Making it partially collapsible would be fine. Anything officially published with an actual ISBN should not be collapsed while the self-published online publications can be. Also, the list needs better referencing. How easy would it be to pound a fake entry into the list in its current state? --DanielRigal (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an article about a prolific author. Of course the "Bibliography" section is going to be bigger than the main body of the article. It's even more likely that this will happen since the author is pseudonymous and only a small amount of biographical data is available. Making the Bibliography collapsible is a solution, but I think this is fine as it is. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the sortable table. With this much information, that is useful. Pattillog (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as I've previously expressed. This is a listing of his works-for-sale, many if not most of these works are not the subject of substantial coverage. If Frank Zappa farts on a record, is it notable? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut down. Lists of works are a standard (though not always included) feature of author biographies on Wikipedia, but I am unconvinced that Tingle's really needs to be comprehensive. If it does, it certainly doesn't need to include the publication date – to the day! – of each format of each work (does it matter that the audiobook of "Feeling the Bern in my Butt" was released 20 days after the ebook?!) I'm not convinced that the sortable table really adds anything from a reader's point of view either (and with my editor's hat on, it makes the list more difficult to update).
I would be quite happy to see only a selected bibliography of Tingle's most notable works in the article (though I would rather not have the section removed entirely: several works, such as "Space Raptor Butt Invasion" are certainly noteworthy in the context of Tingle), but if consensus is to keep listing every single work he publishes, I would at least like to see this taken out of a table and put into a list.
As for the suggestion above to put the information in a collapsible list, I don't see that it would solve the problem: per MOS:COLLAPSE we cannot use a collapsible list to hide the content on the article opening. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut down/Remove – Tingle himself passes the notability test, but we have to acknowledge that some writers and their works are more notable than others, and we should handle them accordingly. The volume of work – and thus the relatively importance of each – is one factor in that decision. For example, we don't catalog every Sunday comic strip that a cartoonist draws, or every essay a columnist publishes, or every monologue or skit a TV comedian performs, or every painting an artist creates (unless each of them is that uniquely noteworthy). If Tingle were self-publishing these stories on a weekly blog, I don't think we would catalog every one; we'd treat them as simply this month's output. And I don't think the fact that he's self-publishing them for sale thru Amazon means we need to start treating each of them as more precious. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"If Tingle were self-publishing these stories on a weekly blog..." - He's not. Straw man. The fact that he's not publishing them elsewhere supports keeping this list. Users want to find a list of his works in a single place. If you don't want to read this list, don't read it. If you don't like the format, change the format. Gerntrash (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massively reduce The vast majority of Tingle's works are not notable. Why should the article be dominated by a list of non-notable rubbish? We should only this the works that he is best known for. Furthermore, why was the list organised as a table? That only makes it harder to edit. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Tingle&oldid=902234562

Leave a Reply