Talk:Firestarter (novel)

FLCL

Do we really need the FLCL episode mentioned here? The connection to King's book seems like misinformation. Having read the book and seen the movie, and having watched FLCL, I see no relation between the two other than the name. If someone doesn't have a good explaination for what the connection is, I'm deleting this "information". -- LGagnon 12:14, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Pointless move

There was no need to move this; we could have made a link to the disambiguation page from the top of this article. After all, this is what is normally referred to when "Firestarter" is mentioned. -- LGagnon 21:41, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

A net search using google and yahoo for firestarter gives the firewall as the top result. Just what makes the book the "normally referred" one then? Please revert so the Firestarter page is a disambiguation page once again. --Ambar 04:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, search engines don't determine everything. Honestly, what do you think people recognize better, a well-known novel by the world's best selling author or a firewall for an OS used by 1% of the population? The way I put it is pretty standard now and fits what people would be more likely to look up. I am going to move the article back here again. -- LGagnon 21:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Firestarter.jpg

Image:Firestarter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair == use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. == i ;ov

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved: 9 yes / 2 no after 25 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• Firestarter → Firestarter (novel)
• Firestarter (disambiguation) → Firestarter

– I wonder if this Stephen King novel is primary topic. I don't think providing statistics of the novel are necessary, as the stats do not tell what the readers intend to surf. In fact, the unrelated Prodigy song has gotten the same views as is more popular than the film soundtrack and the miniseries sequel. Recently, I created dab pages of Start a Fire and Start the Fire. George Ho (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support – this title is way too common and ambiguous to support a PRIMARYNAME claim by any use. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support disambiguation. I personally think of fire pistons before the novel, and pyromaniacs are also a common use of the term. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Title is ambiguous in regards to use here. Proposed moves would be acceptable; seeing as Firestarter could be searched by a reader looking for, as mentioned prior, pyromaniac or arson(ist). Judicatus (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, the statistics are necessary. In March, 958 views for the disambiguation page vs. 11,038 views for the base-name article. So you're proposing to increase the inconvenience more than 10,000 readers to reduce the inconvenience for fewer than 1,000. Obvious good use of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the current arrangement, not at all too common or ambiguous for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You treat this case as if it's not the same as Christopher Knight and Christopher Knight (actor), isn't it? Actually, regardless of popularity of the novel, it is a resemblance of the "Christopher Knight" case. We have pyromania, and general readers define it as pyromania and don't recognize Stephen King's novel as much as pyromania or arson. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  I treat this case on its merits, yes. F-i-r-e-s-t-a-r-t-e-r is a different title than C-h-r-etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree on this use of stats. There are two other ways besides the DAB for readers to go from the Firestarter to the non-primary articles: 1) WP searchbox, or 2) go back to their web search and choose a different WP page. Many readers will miss a hatnote. I think it is fair to say that many more than 1,000 land on this page incorrectly because it is the prime. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per JHJ. The point is that most people who searched for "Firestarter" apparently found what they sought without going further to the dab page. That's efficacious organization. ENeville (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Could they not have simply stopped at that point in confusion from missing the HAT? Judicatus | Talk 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The song is getting 5467 hits. The 11,000 hits for the novel are partly due to its prime status. And there are other uses for the term. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  The "partly due" was the part being addressed by the counts above. The readers who reach the novel because they wanted something else would visit the disambiguation page. That's 958 readers out of 11,038. It is obvious that most of the 5467 readers of the song did not visit the disambiguation page but rather linked to the song from another Wikipedia article or from an Internet search (neither of which would be improved by changes here). Even if, impossibly, all 5467 hit the novel article first, that would still be fewer than half of its visits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree with "The readers who reach the novel because they wanted something else would visit the disambiguation page." Some who get to the primary but want something different will back click there browser and choose a different topic from their web search. OR, will use the WP search box to pick exactly the topic they want, again skipping the DAB page. So, more than 1,000 will hit the primary when they wanted something else. -LaTeeDa (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Possibly. But it would have to be many, many more than 1,000 to change the primary topic by usage, and more than the page views given for the other pages would allow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  JHunterJ: The song has 50% viewership of the novel; that's larger than 30% or 20%. If the novel is disambiguated, then the viewership of the novel would lose 20% or 35% to the song. That's a theory. --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment If we're not going to use the tools provided at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should just move every disambiguation page to the base name anyway, since the unevidenced guesses apply just as readily to every ambiguous title. But that's not good for the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Topics with the same name may be ineligible for WP:PRIMARYTOPICS, including the Stephen King. Numbers of "Firestarter" at this time are confusing; if consensus says move, then numbers of "Firestarter (novel)" will tell us more accurately than pre-move "Firestarter". Stat tools might help, but they tell just numbers. We interpret things differently. It's not like Three's a Crowd or Too Close for Comfort; articles of these name catchphrases are not independently created yet to challenge these television series, so these television shows are at default primary. Never Been Kissed is the lousy film, but it is at default the primary topic, as nothing else can challenge the film. This novel, however, could be challenged by common interpretations of general researchers and education value of the novel itself. --George Ho (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

    The numbers for the base name and the disambiguation page are not at all confusing, unless you do not like the results they indicate. What is the indication for a different "common interpretation of general researchers"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

    What if 30 or 80 people who wanted to go somewhere else other than novel are included? What if they do not want to learn about the novel at all? It's as if "Step by Step (TV series)" should be "Step by Step" just because it's a popular topic. --George Ho (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

    We use hatnotes on primary topics to give navigational aid to the readers who are seeking ambiguous topics other than the primary ones. It is a different case that "Step by Step". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

    The hatnotes may mean something, and the numbers may mean anything. Nevertheless, we should leave the hatnotes and numbers out of this, as they do not influence me to change my mind about this proposal. --George Ho (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

    Very luckily, though, Wikipedia has other guidelines beyond Wikipedia:What Influences George Ho and Therefore May Be Used in Move Discussions. Hatnotes and numbers, for instance, have the consensus of actual guidelines Wikipedia:Disambiguation and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It has not been demonstrated that the present arrangement meets readers' needs. Let those who oppose the move show how it would make matters worse. Pageview statistics reveal many more views for the title Firestarter, yes; but that settles nothing. We have no idea how many of those views where satisfactory to the viewers, and how many gave up once they got there and continued a different line of enquiry. Some might have then searched on "pyromania[c]" internally on Wikipedia or on Google, for example. The present DAB page shows the complexity of the situation. There is almost no reason to think that the application of "primary topic" is beneficial here, and much reason to suspect that it does harm. When in doubt, choose what misleads no one. Let those looking for a novel find a title that includes "(novel)". To do otherwise may be considered following rules for the sake of following rules. Let's not do that. Let's track the needs of readers instead, to which rules by themselves cannot be sensitive – especially the contested rules that we now have in place, which turn out to be open to abuse and misinterpretation regardless of the intentions behind them. Noetica^Tea? 00:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  The evidence given demonstrated that the present arrangement meets readers needs. Let those who want to change it show how it would improve the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So you bluntly assert, against carefully articulated argument. Please give your detailed refutation of this point that I made:

"Pageview statistics reveal many more views for the title Firestarter, yes; but that settles nothing. We have no idea how many of those views where satisfactory to the viewers, and how many gave up once they got there and continued a different line of enquiry. Some might have then searched on 'pyromania[c]' internally on Wikipedia or on Google, for example."

Noetica^Tea? 13:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• What about Step by Step (TV series) and Perfect Strangers (TV series)? They are popular topics, but I don't see them stripping off the "TV series" anytime soon. --George Ho (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Correct me as needed, but they do not appear to be ambiguous with "Firestarter". The primary topic of any ambiguous title is determined from the topics ambiguous with its title. Pink (singer) is a popular singer, but I don't see us adding "(singer)" to Alanis Morissette anytime soon just because "Pink" has the qualifier, because the determination of the primary topics for those titles are independent of each other (but follow the consensus guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Or for TV series, I don't see The Simpsons and McCallum adding "TV series" anytime soon. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  "Firestarter" isn't ambiguous disambiguous to me. --George Ho (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Really? We should delete all but one of the articles listed at Firestarter (disambiguation)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Oops... I thought I interpret wikt:ambiguous correctly. --George Ho (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know what "Firestarter isn't disambiguous to me" means. "Firestarter" as a title is ambiguous on Wikipedia: there are multiple topics that could have that title. Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for the ambiguous title, to disambiguate the topics. I suppose the disambiguation page is disambiguous. Of the ambiguous topics, one might be primary by usage and/or educational value (in this case, one is primary by usage). If one is primary (as in this case) the non-primary topics have titles that are qualified so as to make them unique. That any particular editor anecdotally might only think of one of the non-primary topics when thinking of the title is irrelevant to how the Wikipedia readership as a whole uses the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the big numbers from the stats and Stephen King, how else is the novel primary? If the novel follows the guideline, then the guideline might fail to accomodate readers. --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the big numbers, nothing else. The big numbers are sufficient. The novel follows the guidelines now. Aside from, well, no reason, how is the novel no longer primary? WP:IAR does not mean fail to accommodate the readers who are actually be accommodated by the guidelines you're proposing to ignore. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As a general reader of Wikipedia, I don't see Stephen King novels (Carrie (novel), The Thing Stand (novel), and The Shining (novel)) going to abandon "novel" disambiguity to be "primary". It's not the same as Children of the Corn. Even popularity of this Stephen King novel don't suffice the reason to oppose this move proposal for me, as much as you wanted to suffice. As we the supporters agreed, "Firestarter" is ambiguous... I almost thought Firecracker. --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC) ((edit conflict) My mistake; I thought "The stand (novel)" exists; so I created it as a redirect. --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC))

What is or isn't primary for "Carrie", "The Stand" (hey, the novel is primary in your example as well), or "The Shining" may be different for what is or isn't primary for "Firestarter" (or "Salem's Lot" or "Bag of Bones"). I am also agreed that "Firestarter" is ambiguous. The difference is whether we want to follow the Wikipedia guidelines for determining which if any of the ambiguous topics is primary or whether the encyclopedia would benefit from ignoring those rules here. So far, the supporters of the move have only claimed that the existence of any ambiguity is sufficient to eliminate a primary topic, or that the titling of other book articles should carry over to the titling of all book articles, without any indication that ignoring the guidelines to get to those conclusions improves the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Stephen King doesn't own the name. And it's sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the dab parentheses, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by "sufficiently ambiguous". The title is 100% ambiguous, yes, that's why there's a disambiguation page. The title also has a primary topic (by usage), and that's why the disambiguation page isn't at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  He might have meant the trademarks of the name. --George Ho (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  What is your evidence that this article's topic qualifies as the "primary topic" for the title? You have no idea what people were looking for when they ended up at the present article called (ambiguously) "Firestarter", do you? If this is mistaken, show how you do know what they were after. Noetica^Tea? 13:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  George Ho: My point is that "ambiguous" is like "unique" -- something either is ambiguous or it isn't; "sufficiently ambiguous" just means "ambiguous" -- any ambiguity is sufficient to make a title ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Noetica, the evidence is in my !vote above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  I read your brief justification of your vote, and I presented a detailed criticism of that "evidence". You have not answered that criticism. Noetica^Tea? 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Your criticism was that, counter to the actual numbers that indicate an overwhelming majority of readers reaching the sought page successfully through the current arrangement, we should also give greater weight to unknown numbers that might indicate something else. I responded to that "criticism" at 22:41, 12 April 2012 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  You did not answer the criticism that I actually made, just something that you substituted for it. But never mind: I fear that I am attempting dialogue with a sort of fundamentalist. There is no point. I have said what I need to say; and my criticism of your "evidence" stands – to be evaluated dispassionately by those who are capable of such a thing. Best wishes to you! Let me know at my talkpage if anything new is said, OK? ☺ Noetica^Tea? 13:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, more hypocritical oblique name-calling, adding fundamentalist to inquisitor, etc. But sure, if it ever happens that I need your input, I'll find your talk page. And if you continue to disagree with the current consensus at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, raise your suggestions there, OK? ☺ -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support; I'm not convinced that this one use of the word has clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supremacy - I think the dab page should be here. bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  What do you find lacking in the convincing numbers above? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Look, as I said above, the numbers can change for the disambiguation page and the novel. Views of David Isaacs the singer have dropped after "David Isaacs" became a dab page on April 7, 2012, making the writer more popular than the singer. What's happening right now... is not easy to interpret. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Look, I am under the impression that you and Bobraynor are different editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Be funny all you want, but It's Great to Be Alive became a dab page, and the film became It's Great to Be Alive (film), in spite of your objections. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  I wasn't being funny. I was asking Bobraynor a question about what he found lacking in the numbers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. In my dialect firestarter and firelighter are both common names for products such as Little Lucifer. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Is that indicative of readership usage or long-term significance thought? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Um, could someone translate that last comment into English for me? Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  You made reference to your dialect. Your dialect isn't one of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, however. We don't move every primary topic article from the base name just because any particular editor's dialect uses that name for something else. If the dialect meanings are covered on Wikipedia, they'll be listed on the disambiguation page whether or not there's a primary topic for the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you! Agree that we should not move every primary topic article from the base name just because any particular editor's dialect uses that name for something else, and I didn't mean to suggest that. I'm just offering a little more evidence, to be considered along with other evidence presented above, which I also took into account. If we all repeat every argument from the previous discussion in each of our "votes" I don't think RM will be manageable, so I restrict my rationale to new material as a rule. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  Dialect anecdotes aren't evidence, unless you're talking about a guideline or policy other than WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  The guideline you are quoting makes no hard and fast rules on what counts as evidence, or on anything else for that matter. Andrewa (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  Never mind about "readership" or "significance"; is that topic notable per WP:GNG and WP:N? --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  And it's this cognitive break from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that mars your recent tear of requested moves. Yes, all of the topics that are ambiguous on Wikipedia for a title are notable per Wikipedia standards (or else the topic articles should be deleted). Of those notable topics, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicates how we recognize which if any of them are notable: "readership usage" and "long-term significance". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  What's a "cognitive break"? And how does that mar my "recent tear of requested moves"? I was referring to the stub article of product from Australia. Anyway, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "there is no single criterion for defining a primary topic". Instead, two major aspects have been "commonly discussed", but that does not imply them as actual criteria. Nevertheless, at usage and long-term significance, the novel itself... is as significant and useful as the song, and I don't think readers intend for the novel as much as they intend for Wiktionary or pyromania. In other words, there is no "primary topic" for the "Firestarter". --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  The cognitive break would be "Never mind about "readership" or "significance"" vs. those exact criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Wikipedia is also not a dictionary; Wiktionary is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If you google Firestarter -wikipedia, it looks like the film is the No. 1 thing readers are looking for. The song is prominent as well. There were 30,000 page views for the novel in the last 90 days, 19,000 for the film, 15,000 for the song, 2,500 for the DAB, 1,700 for the firewall, and 1,100 for the soundtrack. Kauffner (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Stats for the novel at this title are not easy to interpret. "My Sister's Keeper (novel)" lost 63-80% per day average after it was moved from "My Sister's Keeper", but I hope it would reach 400 views in one day. "The End of the Innocence" became "The End of the Innocence (album)" and lost some audience to "The End of the Innocence (song)"; in other words, hatnotes have been easy to miss for 20-40 people per day. "Firestarter" could lose 60% or 70% average views, but who knows? --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.