Talk:Choose Your Own Adventure

message: 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)
replies: text: While the lede of Interactive fiction could certainly be broadened a bit beyond the software aspect, it still includes the text based subject as well. Read the last paragraph of the lede, it specifically discusses the CYOA series. SilverserenC 11:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interactive Fiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is it possible that someone authorized fix the "Digital Versions" heading (lowercase "v") and properly cite the source at the end of that section? Or should it just be left there? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm certainly confused here. How can "dispute resolution" happen if no one has any idea what the dispute is about? Looking at older versions of the article, I see a lot of unsourced material, so it's possible that there were factual errors (e.g. incorrect errors of authorship) or that we touched on an area of external dispute between people involved with the books, but I don't see anything that would be so blatantly offensive to someone so as to require the drastic step of an office action and the blanking of much of the entry, including, for some reason, the "See also" section. Since the page is protected and we have no idea what the dispute is about, I cannot see how anyone is going to be able to collaborate with FloNight and rebuild this article. Without revealing confidential details of the dispute, can we at least get an idea what topics are off-limits here? Zachlipton (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone object to restoring the following cited sentences to the article: "Industry publications such as Publishers Weekly and School Library Journal have reported sales figures of over 250 million copies for the period between 1979 and 1998.[1][2] Books from the series have been translated into at least 38 languages.[1]" Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Also, can I re-add the See Also link List of Choose Your Own Adventure books? Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: *I have tried to help but no one will tell me what is going on or how to help.--Milowent • talkblp-r 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just left a message at User talk:Philippe (WMF)#Choose Your Own Adventure article asking about this. That brief discussion leaves me even more confused about all this, but since absolutely nothing is happening here and there have at least been two responses over there, I thought I'd point people that way. Zachlipton (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Time to unfollow this article to ignore whatever drama this is all about.  Xihr  02:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to ignore a potential Streisand Effect So I think I'll put this on watch. EDIT: was it this in particular that all this fuss is about? Phearson (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you guys bugging Philippe? He can't help you (since he's acting as a representative of the WMF). I imagine that's the whole reason FloNight was brought in to handle refactoring the article. Talk to FloNight if you have questions about content. Talk to Philippe if you want to file a legal complaint. Where is FloNight anyway? Shouldn't she be watching this article? Kaldari (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to file a counter if you cannot see the actual request. Phearson (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough. Still, I imagine Flonight would be the better person to talk to. 216.38.130.167 (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Ah, I didn't realize that might be controversial. Removed the last sentence pending feedback from FloNight. Kaldari (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please add  and other sources cited below.  I am not sure how we settle the fact that the major news stories from the 80s attribute foundation to Packard, and a few more recent smaller-press articles credit Montgomery (in connection with Montgomery's Chooseco outfit).  What happened in reality seems fairly obvious to me at the basic level -- both were essential to the success of the series.  Packard for the concept, and Montgomery for getting it to spread.--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:OFFICE 

message: - Parody titles, protected under US law.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic Relief 

message: It's a bit of a stretch, but does anyone think the folks at  could help us find those references FloNight asked for?  They are more interested in Interactive Fiction than CYOA, but the two are related...  --NYKevin @960, i.e. 22:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to my finding above that Montgomery's own press credited Packward as the creator behind the series, I noticed that the Bantam books appear to regularly credit Packard as the creator as well on the copyright info page, "Original conception of Edward Packard".  See, e.g., , which is the same thing I see in my physical copy of The Cave of Time.  This statement occurs throughout the series, e.g., in this 1997 installment.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IF-Wiki/outreach 

message: 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. SilverserenC 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think I speak for all when I say we demand to know what is up. Editors may stumble along here, not understanding what the dispute is about. Add content and then be banned for some secret violation of some secret cabal that seeks to intimidate the wiki-public. Phearson (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a bit of an exaggeration and isn't really productive. I'm certainly upset about how this has been handled from a policy and transparency perspective, but making demands and invoking the the WP:CABAL isn't helpful. As far as I can tell, no one has been blocked over this (certainly neither you nor Silver seren have any blocks on record), and since the page is fully protected, no editors are going to be blocked for adding content because they can't add any content. Let's just take a deep breath here, ok? Zachlipton (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should wait a few more days, and if no one responds, post a request at WP:AN for the page to be unlocked, citing the non-response by the "authorities." Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine any admin at WP:AN is going to unprotect the page without explicit instructions from the Foundation given the nature of the WP:OFFICE policy. Starting a WP:RFC/centralized discussion might be an alternative though. Zachlipton (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaaand nothing happened.  Way to fight the good fight, fellows. 74.36.12.47 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still no explanation given - Extreme bias still in article 

message: 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.
:Issues:
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)
replies: text: I've been following this dispute for a while (but not commenting until now). Could I ask that if some sources are excluded from the rewrite, that a solid reasoning is given on the talk page for doing so? It looks like a careful discussion of each source used or not used will be needed. In particular, the comment "A simplistic and romanticized story about the creation of the book series was told during its early years in the media" almost certainly needs to be justified by reference to a reliable source, as Wikipedia editors cannot judge this sort of thing themselves. One other thing - if some of the scholarly or news sources are subscription-only, it will be difficult to have a proper discussion about the sources - I would suggest a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard if there is a dispute over what sources to use here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: Based on common knowledge about book tours and author interviews, I'm stating my thinking as to the reason that some media stories give an incomplete telling of the history of the book series. I'm not saying that these sources need to be excluded as much as that they need to be seen for exactly what that they are and not be given undue weight in this article to the point that more recent sources are overwhelmed. As far as I can tell no other media outlet is particularly interested in covering the topic of who should be credited with creating the book series. So, it concerns me that some editors are creating a controversy where none exists exists otherwise. And I agree that noticeboards and RFC that draw in new impartial editors is the best way to get a well written article. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: It sounds to me like we're being asked to continue to follow Wikipedia's standard process for building an article, i.e. use article talk page discussion to reach consensus on the use of any disputed information or sources. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone seems to be ignoring the section below, where i'm trying to do as such. :/ SilverserenC 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a start. I don't see all the sources there, and more detail is needed. Best to lay out all the detail in a community-edited area, and put opinions about the sources in a place where people can sign it. I would even go so far as to have a sub-section for each source. The format Milowent uses above is clearer, for example (it includes dates, for one thing). Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Feel free to comment on them. Or add some sources of your own, if you find some. SilverserenC 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check Infotrac again and add any that you haven't listed. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Way forward

message: * "He Chose his Own Adventure" - The Day: Use as citing Packard as original creator and also for the format of the books in the series. It can also be used to cite Montgomery as his publisher. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excellent source.  Full of useful information. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's also, as far as I can tell, the first source to ever cover the CYOA series. Not counting reprints of this around the same time period, since it is an Associated Press piece. SilverserenC 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a strong one. It's relatively fresh too, as it's closer to the source in time. I like the quote from Packard about kids being interested in death! Seanmercy (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Day

message: * "Interactive Fiction" - Beaver County Times: Use to discuss how CYOA created the genre of fiction known as Interactive Fiction, also how Montgomery became a writer for the series. Lastly, it's possible to create a controversy section about the reactions of child psychologists to the deaths in the book. That can also just be put in a critical reception section. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excellent source full of useful information. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would also like to note to anyone else who checks this that it is a Knight Ridder newspapers piece, which means it was published in a number of their newspapers. It was not just published in this single, semi-small-town newspaper. SilverserenC 23:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sales figures for Sugarcane Island are interestinI'm wondering if anyone has found an article that covers the brief period wgere Lippincott published books by Packard that had "Choose Your Own Adventures in..." on the cover? Haven't seen any Lippincott info yet in these... Seanmercy (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Beaver County Times

message: * "In the world of Fighting Fantasy, you can be the hero, too" - The Sunday Times: There's a single paragraph with what seems to be an origin story of how Packard thought of the idea. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Appears like more good information to me on how the series got started. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sunday Times

message: * "Choose Your Own Adventure Series Turns a Page" - New York Times: I assume we're going to discuss the split between Montgomery's Chooseco and Packard's U-Ventures. This can be used for the U-Ventures side of things and the extending of the books into mobile apps. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reliable source which helps give both sides, that Montgomery is also one of the original authors and his company now owns the trademark. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times

message: * "Want to choose your own adventure? There's a books app for that" - Guardian: More info on the book apps from U-Ventures. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good info and some good quotes. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good quotes- mostly fluff. Seanmercy (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Guardian

message: * "'Choose Your Own Adventure' Gets An iMakeover" - NPR: An interview with Packard that can be used for a couple of things. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not sure what this can be used for, except perhaps to use for "Packard was one of the original authors of Choose your own Adventure. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one is great- Packard lays out his views of the split and gives another side to the Chooseco rerelease. He also details the business relationship with Bantam, including the little-known fact that all of the books were subcontracted through either him or Montgomery- surely an interesting and noteworthy fact, and one that I added to the original article last Nobember- check out this quote-
"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)
thread_title: NPR

message: * "80’s Throwback: Choose Your Own Adventure Turns 30!" - Wired: A short bit on ChooseCo and what they've expanded into beyond CYOA. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good info on the relaunch of the series by Montgomery. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wired

message: * "Red Crown, ChooseCo to Develop Film" - Hollywood Reporter: While they are oh so wrong about the creator of the series, we can still use this for its info about the film. SilverserenC 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Useful to reinforce that Chooseco owns the trademark. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hollywood Reporter

message: * "The Golden Path: Into the Hollow Earth." Publishers Weekly 255.17 (2008): 139+ - Reviews this book which was written by Anson Montgomery, "Written by the son of a Choose Your Own Adventure series founder". Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Publisher's Weekly (1)

message: * "Chooseco sues over ad." Publishers Weekly 253.14 (2007): 8+. - Chooseco sues Daimler Chrysler over use of the phrase "Choose your own adventure" in an ad campaign. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a strange one. I added this to the Chooseco page. Seanmercy (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Publisher's Weekly (2)

message: * "Ad choice is an adventure for Chrysler." Automotive News 81.6249 (2007): 42 - Chrysler announces that it is pursuing an out-of-court settlement with Chooseco. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Automotive News

message: * Montgomery, R.A. "You and the secret knowledge." Kliatt 40.3 (2006): 3+ - Press release from Montgomery claiming to be the author of the original series and announcing the release of a new series of books. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Kliatt

message: * Baer, Teddi. "Choosing your own." English Journal 70 (1981): 73+. - Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a copy of this article yet. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: English Journal

message: * Harmetz, Aljean. "Choose your own adventure, make your ending" New York Times 25 Aug. 1981: 18(N); C7(LC). - Infotrac didn't have the article text for this one, and the full article is behind NYTimes pay wall. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *substantially the same article was republished here, free access:.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The best one so far on early info for the series, including very detailed information as to the formation, Bantam's involvement, the concept origin story, and early marketing. This should be one of our primary sources for all of the above. Lots of direct quotes, too. Alas, still no Lippincott info. Seanmercy (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Milowent, does the "Trust a Dying Pirate" review above have some useful info, especially re: the Lippincott period? Seanmercy (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here's a temp posting of that article..  It doesn't have much of use, except that this article predates the start of the Bantam CYOA launch by over a year.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NYTimes

message: *Cherny, Andrei. The Next Deal: The Future Of Public Life In The Information Age, p.33-35 (Basic Books, 2000) ()
:*Full relevant excerpt, at page 33-35 of this book is available via google books:.  I find this source useful because it provides some more detail on the origin of the series, and also give some perspective by being published in 2000, calling it "one of the best-selling children's books series in history" and noting that it reflects an aspect of the generation who grew up reading them.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Next Deal (2001 book)

message: *(28 January 2011). A Mystery Within in a Mystery, Carrie On Carrying On (blog)
::While not a reliable source, this blog references a six pack of CYOA books the author received, which apparently states as follows: "According to my lovely six-book-box-set, the 'Choose Your Own Adventure' series began with Packard's The Cave Of Time, under the commission of Bantam Books Inc.; with copyright attributed to both author and Bantam. But, Montgomery Associates Inc. are credited with the trademark for The Adventures Of You Series, written above the copyright."  This seems logical since Montgomery's Vermont Press published "The Adventures of You Series" just like Bantam trademarked and published the original "Choose Your Own Adventure" series.
::I can't find that Montgomery Associates, Inc. trademark from the 70s/80s, although Chooseco did make a trademark filing in 2006 for "Adventures of You" which they abandoned in 2009.
::--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Carrie on carrying on (not reliable)

message: *Robinson, Sean Michael (23 September 2010). The Forked Path- Childhood, Death and the Choose Your Own Adventure, The Hooded Utilitarian (part of the The Comics Journal, a longtime leading publication covering the comics industry)
::This lengthy article is well researched, and included an interview with Packard for research:
:*"Packard, frustrated with the lack of marketing muscle behind the (Vermont Crossroads) releases, shopped around his concept and some new manuscripts and was eventually able to secure himself a deal with the J.B. Lippincott company. But unbeknownst to Packard, Montgomery and his newly acquired agent were working on a deal of their own with a much bigger company- Bantam Books. “Bantam decided that half of the books would be written or subcontracted through me and half of the books through Ray Montgomery,” Packard told me in a phone interview, almost thirty years after the deal finally went down. “Ray and his agent were really the ones who set it up. I was brought in because I’d started the whole thing.”"
::*I'd seen some suggestions that this was the case before, but this is the clearest report I've seen that Montgomery shopped the CYOA concept without Packard's knowledge, and got the deal with Bantam, and then Packard was brought in.  This is why Montgomery credits himself as the "founder" in the Chooseco press releases.  As I noted above, all the books Bantam published credited Packard with the concept for the series.  So, that exact issue would have been front and center in everyone's mind at the time.  
::"Edward Packard and his former business partner R.A. Montgomery had a falling out of their own, one that has indirectly led to the odd state of the Choose Your Own trademark today. Currently the CYOA trademark is owned by Chooseco, which is in turn owned by one R.A. Montgomery, prolific writer of mediocre children’s fiction. The consequence of this is that the brand itself no longer features any work by the originator of the concept the brand is based on- no Edward Packard books will ever again be issued under the CYOA moniker."
::--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, there was no connection to disclose except when I raised this article as a potential source.  We need more expert editors, not less, on the project.  Writing about something doesn't create a real-world connection.  By that standard, we're all connected by participating in this discussion.  I know more about Packard and Montgomery than I'd ever cared to know at this point.--Milowent • talkblp-r 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is a difference between being an expert editor and the author of a source. If you author something that clearly is directly related to the article in question, you should disclose that when you first edit or discuss the topic. You shouldn't wait until it is raised as a potential source for the article. Having said that, it is difficult, I know. I've written fanzine reviews on books where I've inadvertently created an article on one of the books (failing to remember that I'd written a review of the book several years earlier, before Wikipedia even existed). In this case, though, the source is central to what is going on here, which is what is causing my unease. Can you guarantee that this source will be evaluated to the same standards as the other sources? Will you speak freely, or feel able to speak freely, about the author and the journal and the content of the journal article/interview if need be, knowing that the article author is in the 'same room'? Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is getting rather far off topic into a more abstract discussion of the COI policy, wikiquette, and the role of "experts" in drafting articles. There is something to be said for disclosing this type of connection to an article in advance of one's involvement, and I can certainly see why it might have been more ideal if Seanmercy disclosed this up front as this discussion got going, but the fact is that he did disclose it as soon as this source was mentioned, which was the right thing to do. Given this group and the tenacity of Wikipedians in general, I can't imagine anyone holding back with their thoughts on this or any other source. If anything, having the author here is an asset, as it can help us avoid pitfalls that otherwise occur when examining conflicting accounts (we can actually ask Seanmercy if he remembers where he got a particular piece of information and use that knowledge to further our discussion). I just don't see any reason to beat up on him for doing the right thing here. The broader policy discussion around this issue is an interesting academic exercise, but this isn't really the place for it. Zachlipton (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Comics Journal (2010)

message: * Hendrix, Grady (18 February 2011).  Choose Your Own Adventure: How The Cave of Time taught us to love interactive entertainment, Slate (magazine)
::This new article from Slate about CYOA includes a discussion of how the series was founded with more detail than any prior article I've seen.  It also shows they interviewed both Montgomery and Packard.  The article is also consistent with what I believe was reality based on my research.  There's no reason this article cannot be the basis for crafting the new expanded article.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good timing, wow. Go Slate. :o SilverserenC 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also found that the full interviews the author did for the article are posted here: . --Milowent • talkblp-r 12:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

text: * Nope, it seems like they're trying to ignore the problem to death. I was just waiting for you to get back so we can get started on the subpage. I'm not planning on letting this issue just get swept under the rug. SilverserenC 03:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm here and happy to help, plus I'm tired of waiting, so I just stubbed out User:Silver seren/Choose Your Own Adventure. At this point it's really just a lead and section headings (pretty closely based on the old ones), but it's a starting point to work on. I'll probably do more editing then starting things off, but there's a bunch of us here who should be able to get something pretty good together. Let's get writing! Zachlipton (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source: Slate magazine article  

message: 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)
replies: text: This article is currently protected under WP:OFFICE; it is not eligible for , so I am deactivating the template. The preceding section indicates that the Foundation is nearly finished with sorting through whatever legal mess was occasioned by the previous version, and that the article should be phased into normal editing practices soon. Please be patient while that resolves. Please reactivate the template if you still feel that the article should be deleted when it is moved to normal full protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. I'll be reactivating this template when WP:OFFICE is lifted. We can then see if we have any consensus taking the article to AfD. Phearson (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True, as this is a highly unusual situation, I could see an argument for deletion if a neutral verified NPOV article cannot be constructed.  This would be sad for the project, however, and also for CYOA in general by lowering its internet profile significantly.  Personally, I would like young kids today to be able to learn about the series and read the books, they need to read something other than Diary of a Wimpy Kid.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I think you should wait to see what level of control we have over the article first. If it seems that the Foundation is indeed trying to make the article say a certain thing that is not verified by us in reliable sources, then I will support an AfD on claims of a POV article that is impossible to fix. SilverserenC 03:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree we need to see what happens next before an AfD would make sense - that would an unusual IAR type step and final resort.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: 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. SilverserenC 19:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Phearson (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It did take Edward Packard about 6 years to get Sugarcane Island published, apparently we are trying to duplicate that.  :-) --Milowent • talkblp-r 22:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well? 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Well, that was a long drawn out something or another. In any case, thank you Philippe for your understanding too. I fully realize that whatever exactly has been going on put you in a difficult situation, and I certainly never meant to imply that you or FloNight weren't trying to do your best to protect the project as a whole. In any case, let's write an article now :) Zachlipton (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Good move. But I will be watching this article to make sure that the foundation follows through with that statement. Phearson (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I apologize if I was unclear, I understand from a message on my talk page that I was.  Standard editing rules apply, which includes requests for un-protection.  The page was fully protected under the guidelines for "editing disputes", so it should be treated as though it is an editing dispute.  I strongly urge administrators to look for proof of consensus wording here before unprotecting, but this page is no longer under Office protection.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: PS - if there are questions for me, it's best if you notify me on my talk page.  I don't tend to come monitoring pages I've been involved with in the past, else I wouldn't get any work done. :)  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office protection lifted 

message: 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! SilverserenC 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this part since it didn't seem to be finished: "However, each Bantam release credited Packard as the developer of the series concept.add link here to google books snips showing Bantam statement" Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I missed that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do note that I did not add that sentence to the draft, someone else did. I have removed it from the draft as well. SilverserenC 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, but I think it needs to say in there somewhere that Montgomery now owns the trademark for the title name. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I just haven't written it yet. There's still a lot of sources that we listed up above that I haven't use. Feel free to edit my draft and add stuff in. SilverserenC 23:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of material 

message: 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 : . Thanks, Rasmus (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All done, pretty much as you asked. If you didn't know, there are special fields used together in  for archiveurl and and archivedate, so the original URL can still be included in the links. Let me know if you need anything else. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice. Thanks! Rasmus (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have lowered the protection to semi as consensus seems to be that protection is not necessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any reason we need to leave it at semi-protection? I don't think the article is much of a vandalism target (the normal reason we use semi-protection). Would anyone object to full unprotection? Kaldari (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been nearly 9 months since this nonsense began. Full unprotection sounds eminently reasonable by now. As it stands the article sports an anemic total of 3 references instead of the numerous RSes listed above under #Are these reliable? The more editors available to add these sources to the article the better. -Thibbs (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I've just listed it at WP:RFUP. -Thibbs (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there hasn't been a single edit semi-protected request in that time period, I find it unlikely that there's a whole bevy of unconfirmed/IP users out there that are suddenly going to make this a better article.  That being said, as long as that same silent legion of unconfirmed/IP editors isn't actually disruptive, there's no reason for semi-protection.  I'm going to unprotect it now and watch, but any sign of COI, POV, or otherwise problematic edits will result in the semi-protection going right back up. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I believe this was the right move. Although it often seems like the majority of IP editors engage in nothing but vandalism and that they would be unlikely to contribute positively to an article, studies in 2004 and 2007 have demonstrated this to be a myth. (See Perennial proposals: Prohibit anonymous users from editing for specific details of the studies and for references.) You may be right that they won't help to reference the article from the above refs but at least this way we're giving them the chance to improve the article - a chance that Wikipedia deserves. -Thibbs (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lift Protection 

message: 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 • hasspoken 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[R. A. Montgomery]] passed 

message: 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)
replies: text: The options are in the footer of every page that isn't an ending or which isn't continued over a two-page spread (uncommon but present). At least with the Choose Your Own Adventure series, the page does terminate on a complete statement pretty much every time. (There are other gamebooks, such as the Give Yourself Goosebumps series, which will end a page on an ellipsis, and yet others, such as GrailQuest, which direct you to specific numbered sections instead of pages but otherwise end with a complete sentence.)  —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  first things first