Talk:Flash fiction

message: There seem to be more external links than actual content in this article, which leads me to believe its mostly advertising.  Anyone want to help me pare down the list? Shy 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... the last several edits are just people adding external links. It seems most of them violate the spirit of the External link guidelines as well as what Wikipedia is not. The list should be pared down to just a couple appropriate links. Any suggestions? Phrenq 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Am I the only one who can't see the relation between the fiction made on Flash section and the main part of the article? ~ Mccow28 23:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realize at first which part you were referring to, before I added the section below on Macromedia Flash. Phrenq 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No relation? 

message: Can anyone find evidence that Ernest Hemingway actually wrote that six-word story about baby shoes?  --Justallie 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is widely believed that Ernest Hemingway wrote the story but that does not mean he was the first person to tell draw attention to bereavement in a similar form of words. Derekmcmillan1951 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

text: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001014;p=1 has more discussion.  It's a good question, but it doesn't look like anybody else is claiming to have written it.  Maybe he just never found anyone willing to pay him to print it. Ojcit 04:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemingway 

message: The statement "Aesop's Fables is an early example of flash fiction" is preposterous anachronism! What next - Christ's parables? "Hemingway's six-word story is an early example of Twittering"? 203.17.70.161 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronism???

message: Snopes has concluded that the Hemingway "baby shoes" story is apocryphal. I suggest that it be removed, or at least labelled as apocryphal. --WaldoJ (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Snopes classifies the anecdote as "Undetermined", so there is no basis for calling it apocryphal based on this source; "possibly apocryphal" would be more precise. In any case, there is no point in having both the word "apocryphal", and a "dubious" tag; there is no doubt that such a story exists.  I'll remove the tag. Lampman (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Should it be metioned this style of fiction is very poplular on the various *chan image boards?208.67.140.2 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet Popularity

message: The article flows from generic/background content toward more specific info. To that end, Micro should go after Vignette. Comments? Lionel (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see this section before I moved Micro Award. I think it best belongs under History as it is part of the history of flash fiction. It's not Vignette and don't fit there. Any other thoughts? HeartSWild (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology unnecessary. Lionel (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micro award 

message: This article was largely a bunch of trivia that was sourced to very small online sources that failed the rules set out in WP:RS quite dramatically. Notability is based upon mentions in mainstream, respectable publications, not just some author's personal web site, blog, and fan fiction. This topic could certainly be sourced to very notable and reliable sources. Until such time as it actually is, the crap sources (and the content found only in those sources) must be removed. I have tagged the article accordingly. DreamGuy (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References largely failed reliable sources rules 

message: As bad as this article is, it at least demonstrates some basic notability. Drabble, however, does not show enough to give it its own separate article, so I proposing merging that to this one. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Drabble]] 

message: I made a reference to Vestal Review, a notable magazine. I linked it to the article about the magazine, which gives clear reasons for my assessment.
Someone keeps removing Vestal Review, however,  without giving a reason. I didn't see any reason given for the inclusion of Flash fiction Online.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrflash (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that Vestal Review is actually a notable magazine - I have started a deletion discussion on it. The mention of Flash fiction online at least has an independent citation. - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: *Pretty much what Ollie said, with the addition that I feel that your reasons for adding the site to so many articles is tainted by a conflict of interest, as your username insinuates that you are affiliated with the site. While it's not against the rules completely to edit if you have a COI, it is discouraged because it can often be seen as advertising/promotion and it's easy to see notability where there is none.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia. The article does not cite independently written sources that meet our guidelines, so it isn't notable. But if you want to debate that, the place is on the deletion discussion, which I linked above. Flash fiction online's independent citation is the PC World article, which is footnoted in the main article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just so everyone knows, I'm bringing this up at the revert war admin page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: *Strike that, I can't add it without one more reversion. So let me put this bluntly: From what I can find, there's nothing to suggest that Vestal Review is ultimately notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Let me repeat that this is per Wikipedia's guidelines. There are a good many things that might be popular or seem notable to others but ultimately aren't notable because they lack coverage in reliable sources. By this I mean that the magazine has not received coverage in places such as news papers/shows, books that do more than just list various websites, and the like. Blogs, routine listings of the magazine, and anything released by the magazine themselves do not count as reliable sources, which is what I ultimately found. What this means is that as far as Wikipedia goes, the magazine is not notable. Where this differs from FFO is that it has been covered in reliable sources enough to merit a mention. Now the one concession I will make is that the book is notable per WP:NBOOK because it received multiple reviews. Whether this means that the author is notable or not, I can't say as of yet. I will say that having one notable book doesn't automatically mean that an author passes notability guidelines. That's not how Wikipedia works and it's likely that the article will merely redirect to the book's article. I really, really suggest that we leave the article as I just wrote it, with a mention of the book under "see also". The magazine is not notable and however you might personally interpret that, in the end we have to go by Wikipedia's rules for notability, which it fails at this point in time. If sources ever are found that pass WP:RS, we can look about re-adding it, but it's just not notable enough right now. I want to warn you, continuing in even one more edit will result in my reporting this to the admin revert board and it's likely it could end in a block. As it is now, there's a possibility that your username could be blocked as promotional since you're editing under the name of the magazine. There's no set rule that says you can't absolutely edit, but it is discouraged for well... what is currently going on here. You have a magazine that you're obviously fiercely proud of and you should be. You wouldn't be much of an editor if you weren't. BUT what this also means is that you're viewing it through biased eyes. This is your baby and few parents see any flaws in their babies, so it's likely that you're seeing notability where there is none (as far as Wikipedia goes). It's also insanely easy to take statements of non-notability as a personal attack. I'll warn you, most of the COI editors I've seen come through Wikipedia were ultimately doing it for personal gain and promotion. This might not be your ultimate goal, but you have to understand that this is how this is ultimately seen by most editors.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Presence 

message: This sentence :
« Author Paulo Coelho remarked that the "democratization of communication offered by the Internet has made positive in-roads" and directly influenced the style's popularity. »
...is supposedly based on this article :
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/15/short.stories/index.html
But that source reads as :
« Author of the worldwide bestseller "The Alchemist," Brazilian Paolo Coelho believes the boundless possibility for communication offered by the Web makes it a great medium for storytelling.
"Today everybody can tell a story. That is magical because everybody can express themselves," says Coelho, who keeps in touch with his global audience via his own successful blog.
One area of storytelling where this democratization of communication offered by the Internet has made positive in-roads is in the world of "flash fiction." »
The actual Paulo Coelho quote ends at "express themselves", so the following sentence expresses the CNN article's author's opinion, and Paulo Coelho did not say anything specific about flash fiction as far as I can tell (even though I'm just waking up, haven't had enough sleep, and english isn't my first language), and what he did say seems quite dull, about as dull as a t-shirt slogan. So I'm going to change that sentence and remove the reference to Paulo Coelho.
Also, a more general problem : I was looking for a proper Wikipedia article to link for the expression "two-word poem" in the article "Michael Portnoy". I did not find any article named "short poem" or "short form poetry" or anything like it (although there is a "long poem" article), so I put this one but it's not satisfactory; apparently this article used to be named "flash literature" (which redirects there), which would seem better as it encompasses non-fiction writing, including poetry, or micro-essays and "capsule reviews" for that matter. So would it be possible to rename it as such ? Or should there be a distinct article dealing specifically with very brief poems ? Or both ?
Thanks.
--Abolibibelot (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong citation attribution / proposition to rename the article "Flash literature" 

message: Teenagers - even stroppy teenagers - are quite capable of writing flash fiction. Over 65-year-olds are also capable of writing flash fiction. You do not need a Pulitzer Prize or a Nobel Prize for Literature to write it. In fact, you could give it a go yourself and I would encourage you to do so.
It is misleading to suggest that only famous writers can write flash fiction. Derekmcmillan1951 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can try your hand 

message: In my experience, a single scene is likely to contain under 1000 words, or at least under 1500, leading to flash fiction. Even 2 or 3 scenes usually result in a short story, but rarely pure flash. Word count is one aspect, but a 1300 word story may "feel like" flash fiction on occasions. Complexity of plot cannot be achieved in very short fiction, but complex thoughts, emotions, and ideas can sometimes be contained in a deceptively small space. 86.15.129.200 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single scene