Talk:John Scalzi

message: Article seems encyclopedia to me. Anyone mind if I remove the "not written in encyclopedic tone" tag? -- Metahacker 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The article does need citations to be inline style with a References section, and there should be more citations from publishers and reviewers (and interviewers if possible) as opposed to Scalzi's own sites.  But that non-encyclopedic claim strikes me as someone's objection to the bacon cat and pie references rather than any actual deficiency in writing style. Still, I'd like to see what others think. Karen | Talk | contribs 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the Trivia section needs to be dispersed or renamed or both. Karen | Talk | contribs 03:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: encyclopedic

message: As fun as it is to reference Scalzi's cereal preferences and annoyance with headers on his article, these really are non-notable details about the author, and it is unencyclopedic to include them. The bacon cat item (and probably the invented pie) is notable because of the brief notoriety generated; it's quite possible that some people think of Scalzi as "that guy who taped bacon to his cat." But Scalzi is not notable by virtue of liking one cereal or another (everyone has food preferences, but unless we're chefs they're probably not central to our lives), or for being annoyed with a Wikipedia editor (that probably describes many thousands of people).
Beyond that, under WP:Trivia, trivia sections are generally considered unencyclopedic. Details about Scalzi's family (including Lincoln's assessin) and his college years should be in the biographical section. The pie and the bacon cat info belongs in the online writing section, and references to other writers in his work belong in the discussion of his writing. I'd tackle this myself, but I really don't have the time right now.  Anyone else want to take it on?  Karen | Talk | contribs 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trvivia and non-notable detail 

message: I just restored :Image:Scalzidevil.jpg to the article, which was removed for the stated reason that it was a "joke image" and therefore unencyclopedic.  The image itself was then promptly listed for deletion as orphaned.  I think it should stay, because a) Scalzi himself took the trouble to upload it here (although he failed to do the dropdown and I had to redo it later) and write a caption for it, so it's not something the subject objects to; and b) it provides actual information about the article's subject, specifically that Scalzi likes uploading altered images of his own likeness and (based on the image's quality) is good at it. Indeed, Scalzi has posted many such images on his blogs; it's a minor but notable part of his online fame, and not really covered elsewhere in the article. If everyone disagrees with me, the image will be deleted, and that will be that; but I hope if other editors have an opinion on the subject, either way, they will participate on the discussion.  Thank you. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 02:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is rediculously unencyclopedic and should be removed. Which I will now do. IrishGuy talk 02:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irishguy - I'd rather you didn't as there's an IfD open for it & licensing is okay. It's also on ANI right now - Alison ☺ 02:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like someone else already removed it before I could. IrishGuy talk 03:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I withdrew the IfD nom - the image seems fine where it is now, it was just wildly inappropriate in the infobox. Videmus Omnia 03:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  It makes perfect sense for it to be in the online writing section. Perhaps someone can come up with a more conventional free photo for the infobox.  I have one, but I'm not sure it's right for this. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 05:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This idiotic breaching experiment ends now. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be laboratories for their subjects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

text: "rediculously unencyclopedic"[is] in a place filled with such items, the John Scalzi devil hardly seems out of place and it was used on the cover of one of his books.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A305w (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scalzidevil.jpg image 

message: The Sagan Diary is listed twice; also, it's part of the "Old Man's War universe".
Judge Sn Goes Golfing is part of the "The Android's Dream universe"
Not making any changes myself because I'm not sure if the listings should be duplicated in the list by series/list by type of work, or if they should only be put in one or the other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.48.37 (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  biblio issues 

message: I notice the "Citation Needed" tag appended to the notation that the main character if The Android's Dream is named after the street on which I lived when I wrote the book. This piece of data is true: The character's full name is Horatio Harris Creek, and my house is on Horatio Harris Creek Road. I'm not aware of whether an article subject verifying an aspect of his article on its Talk page is considered enough of a citation, however. Scalzi (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protagonist in Android's Dream Named After Street 

message: The article might need a disambiguation at the beginning - here's a different John Scalzi:
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=7128&cat=boxer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.67.162 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation needed? 

message: No mention of Phil Dick in this article? thats not possible, if 2 novels are "androids dream" and "high castle". just saying.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: PKD?

message: I feel that the JWB reference is not well sourced enough to be part of Wikipedia.  The reference is a link to a blog, which may be a reliable source when discussing oneself, but the claim made is exceptional, and when reading the source, the relationship is not clearly specified nor any real evidence given or suggested.  Having a relationship to an assassin of a major US political figure is a claim that should have external citations.  I think having the sentence remain is violation of WP:SELFPUB.
Kenneytrencove (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Wilkes Booth relationship - exceptional claim, not sourced 

message: The Online and other writing section is generally not well sourced, and some of the citations are broken links.  I think there may be some notability and other content issues that could be improved and addressed.  I might take a stab at in the next few weeks, and see what can be re-sourced, what can be updated, and what else needs to be done to bring this section up a notch in quality.  Anyone interested in helping?  
Kenneytrencove (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of Online and other writing section? 

message: Regarding this post: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
Now that this has recently been published as an E-Book should we make mention of it? Ranze (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 25 October 2012

message: We are not here to echo what Scalzi says on his blog.  We are here to echo what RS say about Scalzi.  If some blog post is popular on his blog, we as individuals may be interested, but we as Wikipedians could not possibly care whatsoever.  If, however, some blog post is popular (or unpopular for that matter) but it attracts RS attention, then we can consider adding it to the article.
In particular, both blog comments and raw blog counts are meaningless to WP. Choor monster (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever is nice, but 

message: I am temporarily deleting the use of the header image in Scalzi's infobox since it is potentially a copyright violation. See discussion here. I will restore the image if it obtains the correct license, or upload a new image that meets copyright guidelines if one can be found. Werónika (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on John Scalzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624150733/http://sfwa.org/news/2007/electionresults.htm to http://www.sfwa.org/news/2007/electionresults.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVJFbu3?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2008-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2008-hugo-awards/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://journals.aol.com/johnmscalzi/bytheway/entries/2007/12/07/an-important-announcement/8073
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928091033/http://sfscope.com/2007/05/scalzis-compilation-your-hate.html to http://sfscope.com/2007/05/scalzis-compilation-your-hate.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212213918/http://instapundit.com/archives/028819.php to http://instapundit.com/archives/028819.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just changed the publication date in the citation for Agent to the Stars, 10 Years On. I made the change from 2004 to 2015, because Whatever lists 2015, but the article was, I think, written in 2007. I'm thinking this could be due to the transition to WordPress VIP in 2008 (see his 2017 blog post "My Annual Unsolicited Endorsement of WordPress VIP"). Is there a way to verify the publication date and is there a reason to contravene what the post itself says? Does anyone even care? Thanks! Zchrywd (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you replaced that link with Agent to the Stars, 20 Years On which is a different article. According to Scalzi, the 2015 article measures the ten-year anniversary of the print release of Agent to the Stars, while the 2017 article marks the 20-year anniversary of Scalzi actually finishing the novel. He finished writing the novel in 1997 and published it for free on his website, and it was not available in print until 2005. The headlines are kind of misleading because while they sound similar, they actually mark different events. Woebegone (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication dates (on Whatever) don't add up... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Scalzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430100328/http://www.locusmag.com/News/2009/04/2009-locus-award-finalists.html to http://www.locusmag.com/News/2009/04/2009-locus-award-finalists.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128054027/http://www.subterraneanpress.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SP&Product_Code=scalzi09 to http://www.subterraneanpress.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=SP&Product_Code=scalzi09
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is it on short FICTION?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.253.172 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The President's Brain is Missing