Talk:Ender's Game (short story)

Removal of File:AUG 1977 ASF.jpg

This image is appropriate for use on this page as it is the cover of the Original Publication of this short Story. It is even captioned with that information.

It is just a appropriate at using the "First Meeting" image which has appeared on this page since 2007. Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in "First Meeting", just as Ender's Game (short story) "Appears" in the August 1977 edition of Analog. In fact I would argue that it is More appropriate since it First appeared in Analog, while it was re-printed in "First Meeting". The second sentence of the entire pages refers to this fact. It is that important.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The nonfree image does not illustrate the "Ender's Game" story, or any subjects related to it; as the cover itself indicates, it illustrates "Cold Cash War," a different story by a different writer. It is, so far as I can tell, standard Wikipedia practice to use magazine cover images (in this context) only when the cover image actually illustrates the story which is the subject of the article. If the other nonfree image in the article is similarly not illustrative of the story, it should also be removed. This is a simple application of our NFCC requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you. I see nothing in the NFCC ruled that backs you up on this. I have supplied a valid rationale for its use. It relates to the history of this short story. I relates to this article. Additionally standard NFCC issues should be resolved by tagging the image with a disputed rational tag giving the uploaded 7 days to address the issues you have and allowing a consensus to be reached, not arbitrarily removing the image.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 04:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

{{3O}}

Two comments: First, I saw this pop up at 3O and though I'm not yet (and may not at all, copyright questions make my head ache) "taking" this for an opinion, it could be of assistance to whoever does take it if Hullaballoo would give a pointer to some policy or guideline or discussion or something which supports the assertion that "standard Wikipedia practice to use magazine cover images (in this context) only when the cover image actually illustrates the story which is the subject of the article." Second, wouldn't WP:NFR be a better place to get a solution for this than 3O? Just a couple of thoughts. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as so clear it has gone without saying until this dispute. I've regularly reviewed fair use magazine cover images, and have never before encountered a fair use/NFCC claim (of this sort) where the article subject was not illustrated by the cover. I would be greatly surprised to see more than an isolated counterexample. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you User:TransporterMan for your input. You are correct. I will move this to WP:NFR.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok it is now listed on WP:NFR--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Character names: Article POV

The names and ranks of certain characters (Ender Wiggins, Captain Graff and Maezr Rackham—whose name was inspired by Karl G. Maeser[1]+) were changed in the novel, as discussed in the "Relationship to the novel" section. This article, however, is about the short story, published eight years earlier. As a result, in my opinion, using the novel's spelling for these characters is inaccurate (i.e. there is no "Ender Wiggin", "Colonel Graff" or "Mazer Rackham" in the short story), and the article should use the short story spellings throughout, except when discussing the changes made during novelization. There seem to have been quite a few attempts to change the article to reflect this, with corresponding reversions by IP addresses (this one for example); in order to prevent further edit warring I've added comments directing future editors to this talk page, where hopefully we will be able to establish a consensus. ‑‑xensyria^T 18:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does this need secondary sources for this info?

This is likely a bigger question than this page but why does every statement say "citation needed" or "secondary source needed"?

All of this info comes straight from the book or the short story. Shouldn't that be enough information for a fictional story? Why use a secondary source to prove that characters are called what they are or did what they did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MerlinPatt (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @MerlinPatt: it looks like this stuff was as a result of a recent zealous IP editor (see the edit diff here). You're also completely right – see MOS:PLOTSOURCE and the essays WP:BLUESKY and WP:When to cite#When a source may not be needed – plots and characters etc. that are in the work being discussed don't need citations. That said, there was also a lot of other stuff that does look like it could have been WP:Original research, which was valid to tag; it just looks like the IP editor may well then have got carried away and tagged EVERYTHING else they could! I'll have an initial go at fixing a few of these. ‑‑Yodin^T 10:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Have removed the tag from the Characters section and one from the Relationship to the novel section – the latter could really use a good secondary source as much as an indicator of what's actually notable as much as anything, and the entire article would also benefit from a few secondary sources even for the very basic lead claims. ‑‑Yodin^T 10:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)