Wikipedia talk:Fiction/Noticeboard

Inactive?[edit]

What's the point of this noticeboard, seems to be inactive and created without any consensus that a individual noticeboard is needed for this subject. Nothing WP:AN, WP:AN/I or people in the individual wikiprojects can't cover. Process creep at it's finest. I'm about to tag this as inactive/rejected. Any serious objections? Secret ^account 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This board is not inactive nor has it been "rejected" nor was created without consensus. It was created as a place to bring fictional discussions needing additional views or to answer questions about fictional topics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit was over two weeks ago, before that only four posts in two months, that reads inactivity. Any issues with behavior can be solved in WP:AN/I where it would recieve a faster response. And a noticeboard isn't the place to answer questions on fictional topics, for that go to the village pump. This is being used for the wrong reasons. Secret ^account 23:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a notice board for dealing with behavior nor for answering questions about topics. Again, the board has consensus. Read through the archives to see what it is used for. It was created, as I recall, as part of the bigger compromises about the whole WP:FICT debate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Than what was it created then, you said that the noticeboard is for dealing with behavior, then you constricted yourself by saying it's not. Also I have WP:FICTION in my watchlist for a while, I only saw seldom mention of this noticeboard. I'm tempt to MFD it. Secret ^account 15:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard was an attempt to deal with the fiction disputes following the two Episodes&Characters arbcom cases. Most of editors' meta-fiction focus is currently on WP:FICT itself, and hands are tied for everyone. This noticeboard may serve a specific use once FICT has been marked a guideline, or it may remain abandoned forever, who knows. But I think MfDing it right now doesn't accomplish anything but to distract the focus from the ongoings at FICT, and I'd wait at least one or two more months (when FICT has either been accepted or rejected) before deciding the future of this noticeboard. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let's give this some time until WP:FICT settles, then see how this ends up being used. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to mark historical[edit]

This noticeboard is no longer actively being used, was never really used, and I do not perceive that it will be used in the future. The last post here was in August 2010, and if you check the history, you'll see that this noticeboard is seldom used. Since this noticeboard does not cover anything that can't be covered by the main content noticeboard (or other relevant noticeboards), there's no reason for this to stick around, as it creates another avenue that users have to monitor and separates discussions. I'm proposing that we mark this noticeboard as historical and merge all (if any) functions over to the relevant noticeboards. Comments? Netalarm^talk 01:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Clearly underused. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, agree on underused,Sadads (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose frankly, this noticeboard should have been used to handle the Transformers mess. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The specific noticeboards or project talk pages (WT:VG, WT:TV, WT:FILM) seem to handle problems well nowadays. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was never really used, it's useless, and we don't need it. --Divebomb (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should have been used, yes, but as it's not frequented, I doubt it would have helped much. The low level of activity here will only prolong fiction discussions. /ƒETCH COMMS / 12:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It used to be useful in the battleground that was fiction a few years ago, but it's not needed anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marked historical. Netalarm^talk 02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author racist?[edit]

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]