Talk:Story generator

Reasons for keeping

There should be some coverage of 'Random plot generators' - as a separate article or as a subsection of another.

They exist in considerable numbers, both general and area-specific, and there is a certain amount of academic and other research - such as [1], [2] and [3]. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is very easy to defeat -- just remove the deletion template from the article. (This is different from an Articles for Deletion proposal, which involves community discussion.) Looking at the available sources, I'm thinking that the page should be generalized a bit more to include non-random plot generation tools. So in addition to not deleting it, it should probably be renamed to "Plot generator (tool)" or perhaps "Story generator". (The article currently at Plot generator is about narrative devices, not tools, so it would stay separate from that.) With the slightly broader focus, there is definitely no shortage of sources. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Re “They exist”: As I’ve pointed out more than once at Talk:Plot generator, existence (even widespread existence) is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability of the subject, and the availability of reliable sources, are the big ones. The amount of research is what matters here, not (and never) the “considerable numbers.” But here’s hoping for a lengthy and well-sourced article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, I agree with the removal of the PROD, and was about to remove it myself before someone got there first. James500 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am otherwise involved but there are more academic papers than the one I have added. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Timeframes

Shouldn’t we point out when events occurred? The article discusses MEXICA, which was developed “more recently” than “one of the earliest computerized story generators.” How much more recently than when? When did each of these things happen? I attempted to put a year to one of them (which turned out to be incorrect), but it was removed without being corrected. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I found a reference in a Google Books content search to an overview of Talespin from 1976, so it’s from the ’70s. Couldn’t get a page number, so I removed that from the ref since I can’t verify that. Someone with access to a physical copy can add that back in if desired. I’m also assuming that the reverting editor’s claim of 1990s in his edit summary came from one of the sources cited there, so I added that in, too. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't have the page number, so you delete the page number from a ref that another editor supplied? I'm really not clear on how that is helpful. Anyhow, I think 1970s and 1990s are correct for the two programs in question, because of when dissertations about them were written. However, if you are asking whether one of those sources explicitly says that program X was written at time Y, I can't confirm that. You are of course welcome to assist with the research. --RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I can’t verify that a claim from the source is on the cited page. (In fact, I’m not sure what claim was originally being cited to that page.) So I cited it to the overall source rather than a page number that could very well be wrong. Hope that clears it up. Edit: I see you restored the page number. If that’s the page mentioning the 1976 overview, then great, thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Shivercao (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)