This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Choose Your Own Adventure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been cited as a
source by a notable professional or academic publication: Bell, Mark The Review Of Communication Vol. 6, nos 4, October 2006, pp. 358-364. Ball State University. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
At the end of this article, we get the statement: "The large popularity of the concept led to the titling of a new genre of writing for the format, which was called interactive fiction." with a hyperlink on [Interactive Fiction] leading to that article. Unfortunately, the first sentence of the "Interactive Fiction" article on Wikipedia is "Interactive fiction, often abbreviated IF, describes software simulating environments in which players use text commands to control characters and influence the environment."... not the literary genre, the computer game genre. Anybody have any ideas how to straighten this out? Is there an "Interactive Fiction" literary genre on Wikipedia that we can redirect to? I assume if the literary genre tried to butt heads with the computer game genre, it would lose. Being a board game reviewer, I can tell you, it's better not to attack those guys directly... 71.232.131.59 ( talk) 10:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has been placed under WP:OFFICE protection pending reasonable accomodation with concerned parties that have contacted the office. This article is not to be edited, except by people who are expressly authorized by myself, the WMF General Counsel, or other authorized WMF Staff. The relevant policy is
WP:OFFICE.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Office protection lifted.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk) 18:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Erm... Just out of curiosity, What exactly is the complaint? I understand if no comment is given due to legal reasons, but I'm confused, particularly because of the seemingly harmless nature of a set of children's books.
Phearson (
talk) 06:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari- I'm as much in the dark as anyone as to the actual details, but I would point out that one of the pieces of information you just added was part of the anonymous reversions that plagued this page in October. I edited the page to reflect the fact that Chooseco is not reprinting the *series* (previous wording, your current wording) but *select books* from the series that they happen to have the rights to. This might seem like a negligible difference, but for someone who really cares about the original series, the distinction matters. Chooseco isn't republishing the series- they're republishing books they have the rights to (Mongomery's, Gillihans, books by their children, and any new books or books they negotiate for.) They are not republishing any of the books by the creator of the series concept, who was also the most prolific (and popular) CYOA article. I don't know how to reflect this neccesarily in the text, but it should be reflected. Seanmercy ( talk) 18:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
People the reason for the office action, is the same as the reason for prior office actions....
"These edits are temporary measures to prevent legal trouble or personal harm" --
ScWizard (
talk) 22:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
1981 article about CYOA
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CH1000075524&v=2.1&u=vill_main&it=r&p=LitRC&sw=w
Packard's Contemporary Authors entry, which should be definitive. Note the use of the possessive when referring to him and the series.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_nUfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XXUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1663,2191360
1981 AP article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d6XmIUj_2E#t=31m30s
2010 interview with Packard re: adapting his CYOA books into iphone apps.
It seems clear that both of us would like to assist in the article.
Seanmercy (
talk) 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice work- those are some great sources! Eager to put them to work, should we ever be able to do so.... Seanmercy ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, it occurs to me that while we're waiting for the results of this office action, we could use your resources listed here to bolser the related sections of the Montgomery and Packard pages. The former is especially unsourced and in POV-violation (weasel-language, etc). Seanmercy ( talk) 16:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
>>>>if the problem is introduced in those articles>>>> And herein lies the heart of the matter. How can I make sure I don't introduce "the problem" when "the problem" is known only to you, the Wiki office, and whomever you're negotiating with? Certainly both biographical articles I mentioned above are in significantly worse shape than the previous version of the CYOA page- little to no citations, weasel wording etc. And yet they don't contain the problem.... Hoping for some clarity on this. Seanmercy ( talk) 18:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
[6] - Parody titles, protected under US law.-- Milowent • talk blp-r 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that there's probably some lawsuit going on between Packard and Montgomery and that there was likely some complaint from Montgomery about us listing Packard as the creator in this article. Montgomery is probably right and we should have clarified the distinction between the two of them.
However, Kaldari, while you have stubbed this article and removed any description of the creator while this is going on, which is fine, you have somehow left in two references that discuss the new CYOA series that describes Montgomery as the creator. This is extremely biased beyond almost anything a POV warrior could manage. Can you please rectify this? Silver seren C 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Since this is an issue between the parties and not Wikipedia. Can we please file a counter request? I'm certain that when the issue is resolved we can update the article to reflect so. We are not ignorant copyright-infringers here, infact, what does the authors have to do with it? They are not specifically "copyrighted content". Phearson ( talk) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
To answer key points raised by several people:
1)To my knowledge of the situation, a DMCA Counter-Request is not applicable. 2)The person raising the issue is being assisted in understanding better ways to resolve the dispute and work with Wikipedia editors. The people involved know that usual dispute resolution processes such as RFC might be used with some content decisions. 3)We are looking for high quality scholarly sources to use as the main references for the article instead of the previous sources which were mostly short blurbs or PR related material. 4)I apologize for the delay but I do not think that rewriting the article piecemeal is going work in this particular situation. 5)Please no speculation about legal issues by Packard or Montgomery. This is entirely unfounded speculation and something that is not appropriate because we do not want to spread false information.
Patience please as we work to find sources that will make the article accurately reflect the cultural phenomena that the book series is. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit of a stretch, but does anyone think the folks at [7] could help us find those references FloNight asked for? They are more interested in Interactive Fiction than CYOA, but the two are related... -- N Y Kevin @960, i.e. 22:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Kevin- It's a good thought. It's worth mentioning though that the references now available on this page currently are an embarrassment of riches- there's plenty here to work with. Seanmercy ( talk) 05:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
FloNight stated a couple of days ago that there would be an explanation given for this WP:OFFICE action. However, one has yet to be given and it is now four days later. This is not the sort of thing that i'm just going to ignore.
Especially considering that both the reference and the EL are about ChooseCo and the relaunch of the CYOA series, when they are not the creators of the series and should not be accredited as such. Silver seren C 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your patience, and understand that the inability to edit a popular article is frustrating and confusing due to the lack of information provided.
We have known for a long while that people who are not regular editors sometimes have difficulty navigating the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. To address this concern, alternative ways of raising issues are provided such as OTRS, or the ability to contact users and administrators by email for assistance. In this instance alternative methods of raising concerns were used by a party and the decision was made to stub the article and apply protection until the concerns could be investigated. Office protection was applied in order to stop people that did not have full information about the situation from prematurely re-adding content. I anticipate that at some point (hopefully in the near future) office protection will be lifted. It is possible that full protection may remain to stop editing warring such as what occurred previously in this article.
After looking into the situation I think that a stable article can be written that accurately reflects the history of the book series and addresses the cultural phenomena that the series triggered.
1)The article needs to not confuse the reader as to the current status of the book series (eg. Have the article accurately reflect that it is currently being published and who is doing it. Some prior versions of the article were confusing to this in a way that could be harmful to the company if other media outlets where using Wikipedia content as their source of information for their articles.)
2)A simplistic and romanticized story about the creation of the book series was told during its early years in the media. Attempts to edit this article to give a more complete and accurate telling of the history using reliable sources has been reverted.
3)Good scholarly sources are available but have largely not been used in favor of the more available online sources.
4)Speculation on the talk page about lawsuits. Please do not make these type of comments as there is no reliable sources that support it and we are not in the business of fueling rumors.
Later today, I'm going to put up a draft of the article that is sourced and accurately reflects my understanding of the history of the company. It is going to minimalistic so as to not introduce concerns. Normal ways of resolving disputes on Wikipedia such as RFC will be used when practical to gather consensus about content. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
>>>>>2)A simplistic and romanticized story about the creation of the book series was told during its early years in the media. Attempts to edit this article to give a more complete and accurate telling of the history using reliable sources has been reverted.>>>>>
Please, please show me where this is the case. I would love to see it.
Really curious to see how you have sorted through these sources and what conclusions you've arrived at. Seanmercy ( talk) 16:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable or not? I will list the specific information that I believe they should be used for as well. I will list them as their own subsection, so we can comment on the reliability of each individually. I will also get to Google Books eventually.
I've noticed that a lot of the ChooseCo stuff is PR pages, which I don't think we want to use. It makes it more difficult. Silver seren C 16:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is pretty far removed from the source, although most of the information looks fine to me. I'd prefer the previous two that actually feature interviews and quotes with the people involved, i.e. Packard Seanmercy ( talk) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Good, if cursory, info on U-Ventures split and CYOA book republication under U-Ventures name. Seanmercy ( talk) 04:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"Mr. PACKARD: Well, when I first thought up this idea and I got I couldn't get the book first book published, and I finally got a small press to publish it. And then the owner the co-owner of the small press, Ray Montgomery, found the agent who found Bantam, who brought out the series in such a big way. And as a result, it turned out that Bantam began giving each of us contracts for equal numbers of books. The books became so popular so fast that there were - many more books were needed for the market than either of us could write. As a matter of fact, we each hired subcontractors to write some of the books.
And after the series went out of print in the late 1990s, Random House, which had acquired Bantam, let the trademark go out of print I mean, excuse me, let the trademark lapse. And Ray Montgomery registered it, so he owns the or his company owns the "Choose Your Own Adventure" trademark. So to bring out my books in app form, I was obliged to think up a new trademark, and thought up "U-Ventures," which I happened to I think it's pretty good. It's sort of brief and more contemporary. "
Great info, straight from the horse's mouth. Seanmercy ( talk) 04:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Totally useless. Press release plus a little salesmanship. Seanmercy ( talk) 04:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the author of the above article. The history portion was based primarily on my hour-long interview with Packard, with supplementary material from the 1981 AP stories above, but at the time I tried to include direct quotes from Packard on information I had never seen before. All of the above information is directly from Packard. Earlier on this page, in my appeal for more information on the Lippincott era, I was hoping to find the above information without having to quote myself. It seems that my September interview covered some new ground.
It's worth mentioning, although it's plainly spelled out in the above article, that I don't know Packard personally- I contacted him through his website as a member of the press. My only contact with him has been two emails setting up the interview, the hour-long interview itself, and a brief email that I sent to him in September linking him to the article itself. I do not consider myself a partisan. Rather, I consider myself a fan of the original series, and an advocate for Wikipedia articles of a historical bent, rather than articles that serve as press releases for current products. Seanmercy ( talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we start making a draft version of this article on a subpage, then move it to the main article after we're sure it's neutral and comprehensive? Silver seren C 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, and thank you for your patience.
We're very close to lifting office protection on this article. I want to lay out expectations for what should happen then.
First, when we lift OFFICE protection, the current stub will be replaced by a draft article that FloNight has written.
That version of the article will remain fully protected for an indefinite time. It will, however, be free for edits once they are consensus based and appropriately sourced. Any administrator will be free to make changes that have been comprehensively discussed and sourced here. The standard rules around fully protected articles apply. Once the most contentious of the edits are done and the article seems stable, the community (in the best judgement of an administrator who's aware of the issues) should feel free to back off to semi-protection or pending changes.
The key things to know about full protection are (from Wikipedia:Protection#Full_protection): Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page.
Note to administrators: please, use very deliberate judgment here. Articles don't go on OFFICE protection on a whim - there are very good reasons for it. If you have ANY questions about whether to make an edit, confer with User:FloNight, User:Philippe (WMF), or User:Christine (WMF). With that said, we're not going to be second guessing good-faith decisions by administrators on this article. You're selected for your judgment.
Again, thank you everyone, for your patience. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 00:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Request AfD. If its any consolation, I'd rather have no article then have a shady propaganda piece. Phearson ( talk) 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's been nearly a week and a half now. Is OFFICE protection going to be lifted and the Foundation version instated or what? We're dying of old Wiki-age over here. Silver seren C 19:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm lifting WP:OFFICE protection momentarily.
We've listened to your objections and will not be substituting a proposed starting point for the article, choosing instead to start with the stub as it is now.
The article's new state is the community's "Fully protected" status, meaning that changes can be made (if non-controversial) by any uninvolved administrator, and controversial changes can be proposed here and edis made using the {{editprotected}} template.
The standard rules for editing protected articles apply. Editors are reminded that standard rules around conflicts of interest apply, and conflicts must be disclosed.
Thank you for your patience. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Go for it, Silver- the directions for accomplishing the edit are here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Full_Protection#Full_protection Seanmercy ( talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Question: why does this article need to remain fully protected? We do not keep things protected for no reason and if WP:OFFICE no longer applies then this article should follow WP:PROTECT. Therefore should requests for unprotection be considered? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From my draft version of this page, can an admin please transfer over the Lede, Format (even though it's only one line, it's something) and History section, please. I want to do a bit more work on Critical Reception before transferring it over, since it's just a tad negative right now. :P Thanks! Silver seren C 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin please remove the link tags around Ray Montgomery in the lede (the linked is to another Ray Montgomery). Also add Constance Cappel as coowner of Vermont Crossroads press (also in the lede). Finally, please replace the non-working link to Publishers Weekly in the reference-section with this : [18]. Thanks, Rasmus (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I see no reason at this point for the article to remain at full protection, since it is no longer under WP:OFFICE scrutiny. Phearson ( talk) 02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that R. A. Montgomery passed away earlier this month. Not trying to start a forum thread here, but considering all the hubbub a few years ago on article content, I wanted to comment here that his contributions and work were much appreciated by at least one if not more generations of children.-- Milowent • has spoken 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
nowhere does the article explain HOW this so-called "interactivity" works. are you mid-paragraph when it asks a question like "open the box? if yes, turn to page 27; if no, turn to page 36"?
gotta be explained somewhere, preferably early on!
it's like BANDERSNATCH (tv special of black mirror) -- u supposedly jump to diff storylines, but no one ever tells me HOW TO DO IT!
in every player i've tried (vlc, wmp, etc), it just plays out in linear fashion. like this BOOK, i suppose, until someone explains how to "jump". 66.30.47.138 ( talk) 16:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Choose Your Own Adventure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been cited as a
source by a notable professional or academic publication: Bell, Mark The Review Of Communication Vol. 6, nos 4, October 2006, pp. 358-364. Ball State University. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
At the end of this article, we get the statement: "The large popularity of the concept led to the titling of a new genre of writing for the format, which was called interactive fiction." with a hyperlink on [Interactive Fiction] leading to that article. Unfortunately, the first sentence of the "Interactive Fiction" article on Wikipedia is "Interactive fiction, often abbreviated IF, describes software simulating environments in which players use text commands to control characters and influence the environment."... not the literary genre, the computer game genre. Anybody have any ideas how to straighten this out? Is there an "Interactive Fiction" literary genre on Wikipedia that we can redirect to? I assume if the literary genre tried to butt heads with the computer game genre, it would lose. Being a board game reviewer, I can tell you, it's better not to attack those guys directly... 71.232.131.59 ( talk) 10:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This article has been placed under WP:OFFICE protection pending reasonable accomodation with concerned parties that have contacted the office. This article is not to be edited, except by people who are expressly authorized by myself, the WMF General Counsel, or other authorized WMF Staff. The relevant policy is
WP:OFFICE.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk) 01:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Office protection lifted.
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk) 18:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Erm... Just out of curiosity, What exactly is the complaint? I understand if no comment is given due to legal reasons, but I'm confused, particularly because of the seemingly harmless nature of a set of children's books.
Phearson (
talk) 06:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari- I'm as much in the dark as anyone as to the actual details, but I would point out that one of the pieces of information you just added was part of the anonymous reversions that plagued this page in October. I edited the page to reflect the fact that Chooseco is not reprinting the *series* (previous wording, your current wording) but *select books* from the series that they happen to have the rights to. This might seem like a negligible difference, but for someone who really cares about the original series, the distinction matters. Chooseco isn't republishing the series- they're republishing books they have the rights to (Mongomery's, Gillihans, books by their children, and any new books or books they negotiate for.) They are not republishing any of the books by the creator of the series concept, who was also the most prolific (and popular) CYOA article. I don't know how to reflect this neccesarily in the text, but it should be reflected. Seanmercy ( talk) 18:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
People the reason for the office action, is the same as the reason for prior office actions....
"These edits are temporary measures to prevent legal trouble or personal harm" --
ScWizard (
talk) 22:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
1981 article about CYOA
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CH1000075524&v=2.1&u=vill_main&it=r&p=LitRC&sw=w
Packard's Contemporary Authors entry, which should be definitive. Note the use of the possessive when referring to him and the series.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_nUfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XXUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1663,2191360
1981 AP article.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d6XmIUj_2E#t=31m30s
2010 interview with Packard re: adapting his CYOA books into iphone apps.
It seems clear that both of us would like to assist in the article.
Seanmercy (
talk) 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice work- those are some great sources! Eager to put them to work, should we ever be able to do so.... Seanmercy ( talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, it occurs to me that while we're waiting for the results of this office action, we could use your resources listed here to bolser the related sections of the Montgomery and Packard pages. The former is especially unsourced and in POV-violation (weasel-language, etc). Seanmercy ( talk) 16:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
>>>>if the problem is introduced in those articles>>>> And herein lies the heart of the matter. How can I make sure I don't introduce "the problem" when "the problem" is known only to you, the Wiki office, and whomever you're negotiating with? Certainly both biographical articles I mentioned above are in significantly worse shape than the previous version of the CYOA page- little to no citations, weasel wording etc. And yet they don't contain the problem.... Hoping for some clarity on this. Seanmercy ( talk) 18:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
[6] - Parody titles, protected under US law.-- Milowent • talk blp-r 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that there's probably some lawsuit going on between Packard and Montgomery and that there was likely some complaint from Montgomery about us listing Packard as the creator in this article. Montgomery is probably right and we should have clarified the distinction between the two of them.
However, Kaldari, while you have stubbed this article and removed any description of the creator while this is going on, which is fine, you have somehow left in two references that discuss the new CYOA series that describes Montgomery as the creator. This is extremely biased beyond almost anything a POV warrior could manage. Can you please rectify this? Silver seren C 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Since this is an issue between the parties and not Wikipedia. Can we please file a counter request? I'm certain that when the issue is resolved we can update the article to reflect so. We are not ignorant copyright-infringers here, infact, what does the authors have to do with it? They are not specifically "copyrighted content". Phearson ( talk) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
To answer key points raised by several people:
1)To my knowledge of the situation, a DMCA Counter-Request is not applicable. 2)The person raising the issue is being assisted in understanding better ways to resolve the dispute and work with Wikipedia editors. The people involved know that usual dispute resolution processes such as RFC might be used with some content decisions. 3)We are looking for high quality scholarly sources to use as the main references for the article instead of the previous sources which were mostly short blurbs or PR related material. 4)I apologize for the delay but I do not think that rewriting the article piecemeal is going work in this particular situation. 5)Please no speculation about legal issues by Packard or Montgomery. This is entirely unfounded speculation and something that is not appropriate because we do not want to spread false information.
Patience please as we work to find sources that will make the article accurately reflect the cultural phenomena that the book series is. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit of a stretch, but does anyone think the folks at [7] could help us find those references FloNight asked for? They are more interested in Interactive Fiction than CYOA, but the two are related... -- N Y Kevin @960, i.e. 22:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Kevin- It's a good thought. It's worth mentioning though that the references now available on this page currently are an embarrassment of riches- there's plenty here to work with. Seanmercy ( talk) 05:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
FloNight stated a couple of days ago that there would be an explanation given for this WP:OFFICE action. However, one has yet to be given and it is now four days later. This is not the sort of thing that i'm just going to ignore.
Especially considering that both the reference and the EL are about ChooseCo and the relaunch of the CYOA series, when they are not the creators of the series and should not be accredited as such. Silver seren C 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your patience, and understand that the inability to edit a popular article is frustrating and confusing due to the lack of information provided.
We have known for a long while that people who are not regular editors sometimes have difficulty navigating the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. To address this concern, alternative ways of raising issues are provided such as OTRS, or the ability to contact users and administrators by email for assistance. In this instance alternative methods of raising concerns were used by a party and the decision was made to stub the article and apply protection until the concerns could be investigated. Office protection was applied in order to stop people that did not have full information about the situation from prematurely re-adding content. I anticipate that at some point (hopefully in the near future) office protection will be lifted. It is possible that full protection may remain to stop editing warring such as what occurred previously in this article.
After looking into the situation I think that a stable article can be written that accurately reflects the history of the book series and addresses the cultural phenomena that the series triggered.
1)The article needs to not confuse the reader as to the current status of the book series (eg. Have the article accurately reflect that it is currently being published and who is doing it. Some prior versions of the article were confusing to this in a way that could be harmful to the company if other media outlets where using Wikipedia content as their source of information for their articles.)
2)A simplistic and romanticized story about the creation of the book series was told during its early years in the media. Attempts to edit this article to give a more complete and accurate telling of the history using reliable sources has been reverted.
3)Good scholarly sources are available but have largely not been used in favor of the more available online sources.
4)Speculation on the talk page about lawsuits. Please do not make these type of comments as there is no reliable sources that support it and we are not in the business of fueling rumors.
Later today, I'm going to put up a draft of the article that is sourced and accurately reflects my understanding of the history of the company. It is going to minimalistic so as to not introduce concerns. Normal ways of resolving disputes on Wikipedia such as RFC will be used when practical to gather consensus about content. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
>>>>>2)A simplistic and romanticized story about the creation of the book series was told during its early years in the media. Attempts to edit this article to give a more complete and accurate telling of the history using reliable sources has been reverted.>>>>>
Please, please show me where this is the case. I would love to see it.
Really curious to see how you have sorted through these sources and what conclusions you've arrived at. Seanmercy ( talk) 16:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Are these sources reliable or not? I will list the specific information that I believe they should be used for as well. I will list them as their own subsection, so we can comment on the reliability of each individually. I will also get to Google Books eventually.
I've noticed that a lot of the ChooseCo stuff is PR pages, which I don't think we want to use. It makes it more difficult. Silver seren C 16:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is pretty far removed from the source, although most of the information looks fine to me. I'd prefer the previous two that actually feature interviews and quotes with the people involved, i.e. Packard Seanmercy ( talk) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Good, if cursory, info on U-Ventures split and CYOA book republication under U-Ventures name. Seanmercy ( talk) 04:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"Mr. PACKARD: Well, when I first thought up this idea and I got I couldn't get the book first book published, and I finally got a small press to publish it. And then the owner the co-owner of the small press, Ray Montgomery, found the agent who found Bantam, who brought out the series in such a big way. And as a result, it turned out that Bantam began giving each of us contracts for equal numbers of books. The books became so popular so fast that there were - many more books were needed for the market than either of us could write. As a matter of fact, we each hired subcontractors to write some of the books.
And after the series went out of print in the late 1990s, Random House, which had acquired Bantam, let the trademark go out of print I mean, excuse me, let the trademark lapse. And Ray Montgomery registered it, so he owns the or his company owns the "Choose Your Own Adventure" trademark. So to bring out my books in app form, I was obliged to think up a new trademark, and thought up "U-Ventures," which I happened to I think it's pretty good. It's sort of brief and more contemporary. "
Great info, straight from the horse's mouth. Seanmercy ( talk) 04:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Totally useless. Press release plus a little salesmanship. Seanmercy ( talk) 04:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the author of the above article. The history portion was based primarily on my hour-long interview with Packard, with supplementary material from the 1981 AP stories above, but at the time I tried to include direct quotes from Packard on information I had never seen before. All of the above information is directly from Packard. Earlier on this page, in my appeal for more information on the Lippincott era, I was hoping to find the above information without having to quote myself. It seems that my September interview covered some new ground.
It's worth mentioning, although it's plainly spelled out in the above article, that I don't know Packard personally- I contacted him through his website as a member of the press. My only contact with him has been two emails setting up the interview, the hour-long interview itself, and a brief email that I sent to him in September linking him to the article itself. I do not consider myself a partisan. Rather, I consider myself a fan of the original series, and an advocate for Wikipedia articles of a historical bent, rather than articles that serve as press releases for current products. Seanmercy ( talk) 21:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we start making a draft version of this article on a subpage, then move it to the main article after we're sure it's neutral and comprehensive? Silver seren C 03:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, and thank you for your patience.
We're very close to lifting office protection on this article. I want to lay out expectations for what should happen then.
First, when we lift OFFICE protection, the current stub will be replaced by a draft article that FloNight has written.
That version of the article will remain fully protected for an indefinite time. It will, however, be free for edits once they are consensus based and appropriately sourced. Any administrator will be free to make changes that have been comprehensively discussed and sourced here. The standard rules around fully protected articles apply. Once the most contentious of the edits are done and the article seems stable, the community (in the best judgement of an administrator who's aware of the issues) should feel free to back off to semi-protection or pending changes.
The key things to know about full protection are (from Wikipedia:Protection#Full_protection): Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page.
Note to administrators: please, use very deliberate judgment here. Articles don't go on OFFICE protection on a whim - there are very good reasons for it. If you have ANY questions about whether to make an edit, confer with User:FloNight, User:Philippe (WMF), or User:Christine (WMF). With that said, we're not going to be second guessing good-faith decisions by administrators on this article. You're selected for your judgment.
Again, thank you everyone, for your patience. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 00:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Request AfD. If its any consolation, I'd rather have no article then have a shady propaganda piece. Phearson ( talk) 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
It's been nearly a week and a half now. Is OFFICE protection going to be lifted and the Foundation version instated or what? We're dying of old Wiki-age over here. Silver seren C 19:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm lifting WP:OFFICE protection momentarily.
We've listened to your objections and will not be substituting a proposed starting point for the article, choosing instead to start with the stub as it is now.
The article's new state is the community's "Fully protected" status, meaning that changes can be made (if non-controversial) by any uninvolved administrator, and controversial changes can be proposed here and edis made using the {{editprotected}} template.
The standard rules for editing protected articles apply. Editors are reminded that standard rules around conflicts of interest apply, and conflicts must be disclosed.
Thank you for your patience. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Go for it, Silver- the directions for accomplishing the edit are here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Full_Protection#Full_protection Seanmercy ( talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Question: why does this article need to remain fully protected? We do not keep things protected for no reason and if WP:OFFICE no longer applies then this article should follow WP:PROTECT. Therefore should requests for unprotection be considered? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From my draft version of this page, can an admin please transfer over the Lede, Format (even though it's only one line, it's something) and History section, please. I want to do a bit more work on Critical Reception before transferring it over, since it's just a tad negative right now. :P Thanks! Silver seren C 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can an admin please remove the link tags around Ray Montgomery in the lede (the linked is to another Ray Montgomery). Also add Constance Cappel as coowner of Vermont Crossroads press (also in the lede). Finally, please replace the non-working link to Publishers Weekly in the reference-section with this : [18]. Thanks, Rasmus (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I see no reason at this point for the article to remain at full protection, since it is no longer under WP:OFFICE scrutiny. Phearson ( talk) 02:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that R. A. Montgomery passed away earlier this month. Not trying to start a forum thread here, but considering all the hubbub a few years ago on article content, I wanted to comment here that his contributions and work were much appreciated by at least one if not more generations of children.-- Milowent • has spoken 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
nowhere does the article explain HOW this so-called "interactivity" works. are you mid-paragraph when it asks a question like "open the box? if yes, turn to page 27; if no, turn to page 36"?
gotta be explained somewhere, preferably early on!
it's like BANDERSNATCH (tv special of black mirror) -- u supposedly jump to diff storylines, but no one ever tells me HOW TO DO IT!
in every player i've tried (vlc, wmp, etc), it just plays out in linear fashion. like this BOOK, i suppose, until someone explains how to "jump". 66.30.47.138 ( talk) 16:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)