Talk:Chuck Tingle

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

• @Tokyogirl79: Check this page's history, actually. DS (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow, I totally missed that, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• 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)

Tingle has made the finalist list for the Hugo.[2] Kelly ^hi! 19:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In light of this nomination success, is there still any question about notability? 74.12.94.137 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

Factual articles

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Follow the same model as Lemony Snicket. --occono (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

I removed it again. We should only list his most prominent works. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

>"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)

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)

I'm going to add my voice to the group who came here to specifically ask for the Bibliography to be returned. I agree that this is a vital reason many people visit this page. User JasonAQuest mentioned that it could be moved over to a separate page, but I have now edited and resubmitted the "Chuck Tingle: Bibliography" page twice, it was rejected both times for spurious reasons. Can someone give a good reason why it needs to be removed from the main page? Especially when the last iteration was a collaspsible table, making the overall length of the page a non-issue. I would also like to parrot that amazon does not organize author bibliographies in an easily accessible way, furthering support for it to remain on this page.

See the discussion below, for starters. This list is not a "vital" reason for visiting this article, as demonstrated by the fact that 1) nobody was even bothering to keep it current, and 2) the article has done just fine without it for over a year. Despite the fact that I consider it fancruft with no practical use, I gamely moved it to a separate article, which then existed in draft space with no one lifting a finger to work on it so it was eventually deleted. If Chuck Tingle fans want a list of every item he's uploaded to Amazon, might I suggest starting a Chuck Tingle fan site for it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the threshold when this is considered a valuable resource? It seems that at least 3 different people have put in time to come back and re-add the bibliography, and to the comments that no one lifted a finger to update it... I did exactly that. In multiple ways. I attemped to go the route of the recommendations here and get up the separate page and that was rebuked. Earlier here it was stated that roughly half of the editors thought it was useful and the other half didn't. Since then, multiple people have commented here that it is not only useful, but an essential part of the page. Why is this specific vendeta so worth the editors time? This author's work is important to a subset of queer and underrepresented people, so why is it so worth the editor's time to fight against the content? If there are individuals who want to keep it updated, why go through the trouble of removing it over and over again? Ktemu (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The editors who commented on and declined your draft bibliography at AfC explained why they did so and what you need to do to demonstrate that a stand-alone article meets wikipedia's policies: find some reliable sources, independent of Chuck Tingle, who have written about Chuck Tingle's bibliography. If you can cite those, then the article meets our notability guideline for lists, which is the big hurdle you would have to overcome to get such an article accepted.

As for why the bibliography is not in this article, I suggest you thoroughly read this section on this talkpage. I would suggest that it would be much easier to convince other editors to include a more discriminating list, featuring Tingle's best-known works, especially if you can come up with inclusion criteria which make it easy to determine whether a work should be listed or not. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I was just talking about the arc of these books w/ someone and saw there was no works section; I took a pass at selected works. Metrics: referenced elsewhere, covering a cross section of years, including all the non-novellas; made a splash at the time, or had at least 50 reviews on Goodreads, or highly rated with 30-50 reviews. Better metrics welcome, but this feels like it gives a better sense of the genre than the previous text alone. – SJ + 13:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• SJ, excellent job creating the selected works section. While it's not possible to easily list all of Tingle's output, this new section captures the highlights of his publishing career. And the situation with Tingle's career has also changed in recent years, with him having novels coming out by a major publisher. This section was sorely needed and the article would be extremely lacking without it.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• Keep as relevant content but it could be put in a collapsible list if agreed Atlantic306 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Keep - I like the sortable table. With this much information, that is useful. Pattillog (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

*Discussion of the meaning of MOS:COLLAPSE and WP:NOTPAPER moved below. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the further I lean towards Remove entirely. I certainly think that the list we have at the moment isn't suitable for inclusion on wikipedia, or particularly helpful to readers, and the arguments to keep it are straight out of arguments to avoid: "I like it", "it's interesting", "it's useful" and so on. And nobody has thus far provided any evidence for the claims that e.g. It's one of the primary reasons people come to the page. On the other hand, I do find the claim that it is an indiscriminate collection of information true. Tingle's works which are important to discuss in an encyclopediac article on him can be mentioned in the prose (as we already do with e.g. "Space Raptor Butt Invasion" and its Hugo nom). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

"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)

It isn't a straw-man argument; it's a comparison with something very similar. And please stop generalizing your personal desires with declarations of what "users want". It should be obvious that some users of this encyclopedia do not want what you want. The format I want is a list of his most notable works. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

*Note: A couple of hours ago, I closed this RfC as having a consensus to remove. Atlantic306 requested on my talk page that I re-open the discussion on the grounds that I should have closed the RfC as lacking consensus, claiming I had effectively super-voted. I maintain that I was within the bounds of policy regarding determining consensus in lending more weight to policy- than opinion-based arguments in evaluating the consensus. However, I believe it was poor form and technically an involved closure to make a comment here, remove it and then close the discussion, even if the comment and the closure assume different positions. To avoid needless drama, I have re-opened the discussion. Posted below is an edited version of my closing rationale, which I am making my vote. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Massively reduce. The arguments to keep amount to "it's useful". This may be true for some people, but Wikipedia is not a collection of all things useful. If we kept everything that somebody finds useful, or Heaven forbid, everything that isn't listed anywhere else, this project would balloon into a collection of everything that would be impossible to navigate and become useless. There is a reason Wikipedia is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information.

As several editors have complained, this list has become an indiscriminate collection of every work Tingle has ever published. Currently, it includes 188 items and comprises roughly 80% of the article (by surface area). The purpose of an encyclopedia article and all content within is to help the reader understand the subject better. Nobody has asserted that a complete bibliography helps us better understand who Tingle is as a person or as a writer. Instead, as others have noted, a full bibliography makes navigation and maintenance more difficult, and the deluge of minor works makes it more difficult to find the notable ones. While a full bibliography may be useful to those seeking to buy Tingle's works, Wikipedia is written for those who seek to better understand who Tingle is. Those readers would be better served by a neat, visually uniform list of Tingle's most important works, one that highlights those works that truly reveal something about him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

*Extended discussion of this vote moved below. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Editor's note: Because RfCs become needlessly complicated when you discuss multiple things simultaneously, I have moved all extended discussions down here, most notably that of a separate bibliography page. This should not affect one's ability to understand the conversation here. Preferably, going forward, all extended discussion of votes will also taken place here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of MOS:COLLAPSE and WP:NOTPAPER in response to Caeciliusinhorto's vote. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a guideline that seems unhelpful and contradicts WP:NOTPAPER aims of reducing loading times Atlantic306 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. When a list is collapsed, the software has to load in the entire page (including the list and the code that collapses it). If anything, not collapsing lists reduces the load time (by reducing the source code that must be loaded and executed), although I doubt the result is significant for most users. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict WP:NOTPAPER at all. Adding extra css/js elements in no way reduces loading times – the table still has to be loaded! The reason we shouldn't have a list which is collapsed on opening is that many readers will be using a browser which will not allow them to open the list – WP:COLLAPSE says that this includes mobile readers, who make up half of our readership. And WP:NOTPAPER itself says that just because it is possible to do something which isn't possible in a print encyclopedia doesn't mean that we should do so! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Compassionate727's oppose vote. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this strawman argument and opinion. Gerntrash (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe this constitutes a strawman fallacy. For instance, to use your own argument, you said the information is "unique" and "of interest" (by the latter, I assume you mean it is useful, not amusing). I began by explaining why this is not the standard for including content in this project (that including all such information would lead to an unlimited scope). I then noted that the current criteria for including works in Tingle's bibliography are an example of what we are not supposed to do. Next, I explained how we actually should determine what belongs in an encyclopedia article (that is, whether the content advances the end of the encyclopedia article, namely comprehension of the subject). Then, I noted that a full bibliography actually works against this end (because the reader struggles to find Tingle's most important works in a flood of unimportant ones), before observing that a selected bibliography highlighting Tingle's most important works would tell us more about him, because inferring things about Tingle's writing after analyzing a few quality examples is much easier than after analyzing all 188 of his listed works (and the comprehension-seeking reader is much more likely to pay attention to a digestible number of entries than the current obscure blob). All told, I probably could have arranged my points in a better order and better explained how each point relates to the whole of the argument, but I think it was a cogent argument nonetheless. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment I, personally, find it useful. If others feel so strongly about it, then I would support the proposed compromise of creating a separate bibliography article. Pattillog (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you catch the point that "it's useful" isn't a persuasive argument? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• 'Comment' - Compassionate727 previously wrote this, then reverted:

==Proposed compromise==

So far, about half of editors believe that this bibliography is too long and unwieldy in this article, and half of editors believe it is useful to have a full bibliography. If I closed this RfC now, I would need to close it as no consensus, which is a useless result. Fortunately, we actually have a conventional recourse here, and it is one I believe will satisfy both groups. Normally, when an author has a very long bibliography, we use a selected bibliography on the biographical article and create a separate article (list, really) with the full bibliography. See these featured articles as examples: Edgar Allan Poe (bibliography), William Shakespeare (bibliography), Maya Angelou (List of Maya Angelou works|list]]). By taking this course of action, we can retain a full bibliography without it taking up an unsightly 80% of the main biography. Would this be an acceptable course of action to everyone? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Pinging previous participants: JasonAQuest, Atlantic306, Gerntrash, DanielRigal, PraiseVivec, Pattillog, Power~enwiki, Caeciliusinhorto, and Susmuffin. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That is actually something I would support. Gerntrash (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I should note that I removed that proposal because I thought a little more about it and decided I didn't believe the bibliography would be sufficiently notable to survive AfD, as bibliographies are lists, whose individual entries all must be notable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The lack of individual notability of the items in the table/list is the problem. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• • I support the seperate bibliography page as I didn't realise the technical problems of collapsed lists so it would be better on a seperate page and to aid understanding this article would only mention a selective bibliography of his more notable works with a link to the more extensive bibliography page. I do think though that he is notable enough for a bibliography page as there are thousands of similarly notable subjects who have them such as actors filmographies and musicians discographies as well as bibs for authors and WP:NOT does make an exception in the case of lists of creative works not being directory examples, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: I believe there is a substantial difference between many notable authors and musicians and the article we are dealing with here. The authors I mentioned previously (Edgar Allan Poe, Shakespeare, Maya Angelou) are so famous that their works are assumed to be notable: that is, they personally are of such great literary importance that we assume there are at least two reliable, independent sources (i.e., academic journal articles) discussing each of their works. (See WP:NBOOK criterion #5.) I'm less comfortable speaking about how music works, but I can say with confidence that the GNG (as interpreted in WP:NSONG) is so broad that many songs and albums published by an artist of any prominence are notable, just due to the way that genre-specific websites frequently feature new releases. (This is why that guideline has a note at the bottom saying that a recording should not have an article just because it is notable.) WP:NFILM is more reasonable.

Anyway, my point with all of this is that I'm unconvinced that we treat bibliographies any differently from other lists on Wikipedia. Unlike all articles, we don't apply the general notability guideline to lists. Instead, we apply it to each item in the list. If my understanding of how we treat bibliographies is correct (we can ask an AfD regular for verification, if you want), then for us to list a book in a separate bibliography about Tingle, we would need to demonstrate that said book is notable—and we seem to be in tentative agreement that most of his works are not. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I also support a separate page for the bibliography based on the fact that I'm not sure exactly how a trimming of the bibliography might work. If the decision was to remove many of the writings on the list, who is going to decide what piece of Bigfoot erotica stays and what goes. Who and by what standards is going to deem some self-published unicorn porn more notable than other self-published unicorn porn? What even are the criteria of notability when we're talking about self-published works? These and other questions makes me think that trying to trim down the bibliography is going to be a much more difficult endeavor than just giving it its one place. PraiseVivec (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The absolute minimum standard for notability is that they are being talked about. If a book falls in the forest, and it doesn't make a sound, it isn't notable... that's literally what "notable" means. That's why I've argued that the lists just plain don't meet Wikipedia standards. We should write about the pieces that are covered by reliable sources. It certainly makes sense to talk about some examples of his work in the article, as reliable sources do. But watching Tingle's Amazon author page, an transcribing whatever data we find there? There's a verifiability problem there: short of buying them, how do we confirm that these aren't just "all work and no play makes chuck a dull boy" over and over? WP relies on independent published sources to fact-check primary sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PraiseVivec: WP:GNG applies to all subjects. We have a specific guideline, WP:NBOOK, that interprets the GNG within the context of books, thus making it easier for us to determine quickly whether or not a book is probably notable. Notability is a low content bar: if an item isn't notable, meaning there aren't at least two reliable, independent sources which cover the subject in a nontrivial manner, then there's going to be nothing out there to write about it.

These two guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, would determine whether or not we included any given work of Tingle's in a separate bibliography (see the second paragraph of my explanation to Atlantic306 above). For the bibliography in this article, notability isn't the rule, just whether we as editors believe that listing that particular work helps the reader understand Tingle better. However, it is still relevant, because a book can't tell us much about Tingle if there isn't anything out there about it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

* Comment This is apropos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Criticism Pattillog (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I see no reason to oppose a separate bibliography article here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I moved the bibliography to a separate article, per the above discussion. Another editor then moved that to Draft:Chuck Tingle bibliography on the grounds that 'It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources.' Anyone who feels the list is worthwhile is welcome to work on it there, and – as I was told[8] – 'When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.' -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chucktheadshot orig.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Gender

Tingle has made a number of Tumblr posts about his identity as a non-dysphoric trans person. These include an explanation of his pronouns and a series of anecdotes about discovering his non-dysphoric transness. I don't trust myself editing the page. Eli 16:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)