| Welcome to the talk page for "Mindfuck" |
|---|
|
This article was previously nominated for deletion and the result was 1) Keep 2) No Consensus 3) Keep 4) Speedy Keep 5) Merge. Consider the prior discussions before re-nominating. |
|
See Also: |
| Previous Discussions
|
|---|
April 2008 Discussion Result[]
- OK here goes everyone.
- First of all I would comment IMO what a tremendous waste of time arguing over this very peripheral issue is. The discussion above suggests the blurring of interpersonal issues with site policy issues, content issues, and even the motivation of making a point with regard to other articles altogether. The result today is not intended to resolve these myriad issues. As for policy, LP has logically modeled itself on WP, although in practice (and in some cases outright policy) we have diverged from WP, for example in the role of sysops for shaping changes in site policy and the role of normal editors in that original research and analysis are allowed in some cases. Usually there has been no one issue that forced sudden movement on changes in site policy, and the evolution of how LP works has been largely gradual.
- To put it in perspective, even the current discussion, despite the wordcount, largely seems to be limited to about five "interested" users. The current issue IMO pales in comparison to other more significant changes in LP site policy that have occurred recently, such as 1) moving theories out of articles to a separate theory tab, or 2) removing creative parody articles from the main article space, or even 3) adding a discussion forum to the site. Therefore although we will continue to work through important issues as LP grows, this article's result is not intended to be a sea change or precedent, and should not be cited as such in the future.
- I explicitly reiterate that the resulting decision was made in light of arguments presented, and not a numerical tally of the straw poll. In this approach, we follow WP's example. The logic was essentially that either: 1) "Mindfuck" (MF) might be deleted if shown to be essentially an imaginary construction, or 2) fully retained if shown to be a well-regarded and well-referenced literary device, or 3) merged as a subsection of "Plot twist" (PT) if MF is shown to exist in citations but not well-referenced enough to merit a separate article than PT without redundancy.
- Result: Merge with MF as a subsection of PT -
- RATIONALE - References for MF were shown to exist. However it was not as well-referenced as, for example PT. Neither were the usages found for MF to be entirely self-consistent AND incontrovertibly distinct from PT. Therefore MF was shown to exist, but not distinct enough for its own article, albeit cited enough to deserve treatment in the PT article. Note: as an executive sysop decision, MF should not be removed from the PT article for at least 6 months before new discussion. That's October 11, 2008.
- Comments: Guidelines on merging - A few points.
- It'll be easy for the invested participants in this heated discussion to use the editing of the merged article as a platform for further acrimony for its own sake. Please resist the temptation.
- MF probably should receive its own distinct subhead within PT, especially now at the beginning of the merge process.
- An edit war on a definition for MF is not desirable. To this end, let me remind all editors that LP differs from WP in the very significant way that LP allows original research by its editors. One consequence is that LP has analysis articles. Therefore for the definition of MF to be used in the PT article, we as a site may consider the available sources, but make a functional definition for the purposes of LP, without strict regard to one citable definition or another. In other words, we can't pretend to ignore the reason why PT and MF are such big deals in this wiki: Lost has particularly made a name for itself in having very unexpected twists in its storyline-- Our own twist on the MF definition is justifiable because differentiating PT from MF as it applies to Lost is the goal.
- My personal suggestion as a seed for discussion: "MF is a PT of such magnitude that it requires the viewer to change their entire paradigm of what Lost is." Any PT that does not do this, no matter how large, is not a MF. Thus early in Lost, when the viewer still has little idea of Lost is, it is easier to score a MF than later. Jack's 3x22 TTLG Flashforward is a MF in that the viewer's paradigm of Lost's storytelling format is completely changed, and it used a PT to do this. 1x18's (Numbers) ending showing Hurley's Superlotto numbers on the Hatch could be arguably a MF in that the existence of the supernatural in the Lost universe has been made explici for the first time in a way that also suggests to the viewer that an eventual explanation is coming in the future storyline-- although it is arguable that 1x04's ending with Locke in a wheelchair did the same earlier in a way that also forever altered the expectations of the viewing audience for what this fledgling ABC series was about. These issues are admittedly debatable: Is Jack's discovery of Desmond in the hatch a MF or is it only a PT b/c was it foreshadowed by other flashback character connections? What about Penny's workers' phone call at the end of LTDA (2x23-24), which for the first time confirmed the parallel existence of a timeline outside the island? It didn't set up the viewer in order to fool them, but it did entirely change the paradigm of the storytelling with regard to the outside universe (as later validated by the freighter, submarine, the Flame's surveillance of Rachel Burke, Tom/Michael in NY, etc. ).
- Suggestion 2: If the issue really matters to you, finding (or even soliciting via podcast or Fuselage) a quote from TPTB re: MF might be interesting.
- But being debatable is fine, because LP allows original research and analysis. I hope and strongly suggest that we craft a way to address MF within PT without more of this infighting. That is not healthy for the community nor the site, and (especially to the participants in this discussion that I would describe as "highly invested"): actions that may be interpreted as intentional trolling should be diligently avoided. Thank you. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 03:34, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
- Right, now thats done (and I hasten to add, I called for merge whilst in SysOp discussion!) can we now look at merging MF into PT. There is already a section there that I created on MF, is this sufficient? Plkrtn talk contribs email 03:44, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
- Santa, you bring up some good points that should definitely be discussed in the merged article. Thank you for letting us know the outcome. Your explanation about the decision process made good sense. Plkrtn, I'd like to help flesh that section out a bit with you, if you'd like. That conversation should probably continue on the talk page of the merged article as well. I'm glad we can move forward now. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 04:58, 11 April 2008 (PDT) Edit: Would it be better to archive everything but this section, leaving this for a few days so everyone can see the result. I think archiving the rest will prevent (hopefully) any further bickering now that the decision has been made.
- I'm glad that a resolution has been found. When I made my suggestion about majority vote, it was only that- a suggestion, and I completely understand the reasons provided against it. My next suggestion would have been exactly this- a compromise. I'm sorry that my two cents caused more arguing, as that wasn't my intention at all.--MetallichickX 12:05, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
- Bravo! This was a very complicated debate that unfortunately was both somewhat polarized as well as comprised of and attached to several different tangled issues, some of which went beyond the article itself and into things like site policies. I think merging was a good compromise between the parties that wanted to keep and those that wanted to delete. I'm happy that the definition of mindfuck (for the purpose of this site) has been both clearly defined, and also been made distinct from plot twist. I'm fine with the suggestion that some types of original research are allowed here as opposed to Lostpedia, and that it has been clarified. And I'm also very glad that the final result was reported by a different sysop than the one that was most vocal during the discussion; it is comforting to see that our concerns about neutrality were not overlooked. In the end, I think the most important thing was not whether the article was kept, merged, or deleted, but that the key issues weren't simply swept under the rug as before, that instead they were seriously considered, addressed, and rectified to the extent possible. Thanks, and good work! My only question is, as a subsection, will mindfuck still be on the literary techniques infobox template? --Jackdavinci 14:09, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
- When I nominated this article for deletion, this is exactly the kind of outcome that I wanted to get. Although the term won't be deleted, merging it is the best decision. At first, I thought a mindf*ck was the same thing as a plot twist; although I still am opposed to the term itself, it's definition is somewhat more clear to me, hence, merging it with plot twist (since a mindf*ck is in actuality a subsection of the term plot twist) is a plausible outcome to this 'far more heated than it should be' debate. When I nominated this page for deletion, I didn't expect such a fueled debate (guess I was wrong). The outcome to the debate is definitely reasonable and a fair compromise. --CTS 16:02, 11 April 2008 (PDT)
The Merge[]
It seems like the core content of this article is already on Plot twist. Anybody want to transfer anything else or is the merge complete and this article ready to be turned into a redirect?--TechNic|talk|conts 16:43, 11 April 2008 (PDT)