Talk:Outline of A Song of Ice and Fire franchise

OR tag in "type" section

@WikiHannibal: You posted an Original Research tag in the section "What type of thing is A Song of Ice and Fire?"

Your edit summary says:

{{original research}} - at least fo the time being; "can" be described? We need a source describing it using the terms

Okay, so I changed the wording from "can" to:

A Song of Ice and Fire is an example of all of the following:

Do you find any of the types listed dubious? The Transhumanist 18:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the change you mentioned above does not change anything of substance, of course. I find dubious all those that are not sourced properly - which means a relevant source speaks about ASOIAF in direct connection with the term used in the article. (BTW the ref linking it to paracosm is not really relevant, giving the definition of the term plus an example which happens to be ASOIAF but speaking about something completely different.) And second, there seems to be a hierarchy of the terms expressed by the bullet points+indents, which might also look like OR: why does the hierarchy "a fictional setting – a constructed world – a fantasy world", for example, not involve a fictional universe; and how do we know that the terms, arranged like that, really are hyponyms/hyperonyms, paronyms or something similar? WikiHannibal (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: Hello. Nice to meet you.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, so we are on the same page. Please correct me if I am mistaken: your concern is that they be sourced, not that you doubt that they are accurate. For example, you don't doubt that ASOIAF is fiction. You just want the claims that it is fiction, and that it is a series of novels, etc. to be referenced. Here and wherever else these claims are made.

Am I understanding you correctly? The Transhumanist 00:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: the reason "fictional universe" wasn't included is because I thought that it meant "more than one planet", in contrast to "fictional world". Thanks for the heads up. Looking around, I see that shared universe might also apply. What do you think? By the way, can you think of any others I missed? —TT

Hi, I doubt they are accurate because they are not (well-)sourced. To answer your question, "fiction" is OK - there are sources in A Song of Ice and Fire that state that, and it seems to be sourced in this article as well. Fantasy fiction - I guess so, even though the source and quote (I appreciate the quotes) do not state that it is fantasy fiction (so this might be improved as well).

But others are controversial - I suppose it is high fantasy but I would like an expert, perhaps a literary scholar, to tell me that. What if I am wrong about it? And then there is the "fictional world"/"setting" mess, which is the most OR part. Not including "fictional universe" and especially the reason for not including it ('I thought that it meant "more than one planet"') is a perfect example of OR. This is not about what I or you think. I do not know if it "is" a fictional universe or not, I use the term here just as an example - it was just the first one I came across. And when I check Fictional universe (much OR in it as well, of course), there's nothing about "more planets". And you describe ASOIAF as a parocosm; the description of parocosm includes imaginary world which is redirected to Fictional universe. So, a mess.

Plus there is that objection of mine to the hierarchy. I do not plan on thinking about what other terms might apply. I suggest you remove similar unsourced hierachies from all "outline" articles about "things" like ASOIAF (Outline of Narnia, Outline of Middle-earth). Plus when you copy text from other articles (e.g. "Typical fantasy worlds involve magic or magical abilities, nonexistent technology"), why don't copy the source used there as well (= Brian Attebery, The Fantasy Tradition in American Literature, p 166-7, ISBN 0-253-35665-2)? --WikiHannibal (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a point upon which I disagree. Leaving something out, even if it is because you don't know it applies, isn't OR. Otherwise, all articles would be OR until they were absolutely complete. Finding everything pertinent takes time. Incomplete does not equal OR.

Concerning unsourced hierarhcies, the hierarchical heading structures of nearly every article, and the hierarchical structure of nearly every structured list (of which there are thousands), are not sourced. Indents abound in bulleted lists all throughout Wikipedia, and one rarely sees them sourced, if ever. It's not common practice. But I'm sure those included here are verifiable. So I'll be happy to hunt down references. They'll be useful in the respective articles as well, to alleviate your OR concerns.

Thanks for the suggestions. Especially the one on copying sources.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 18:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)