Talk:John Crowley (author)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
 

Untitled[edit]

Re: 'American'-> US which User:Rossami did on this page:

It's hard to conceive of any circumstances under which "American writer" or "American filmmaker" or any such construction could be "ambiguous"; i.e., not mean an inhabitant of the United States of America. I'm Canadian, and I think so! American is just the adjective referring to people from the USA in that context. It is 100% pure English phrasing, and 'US writer' or 'US filmaker' sounds weak by contrast.

Were it possible to confuse this with another meaning of 'American' (an inhabitant of South America, a native American Indian) it would NOT be in THIS context where it's clearly referring to the country of origin in the same sense as 'Canadian writer', 'British filmmaker', etc.

Encyclopedias use "American xxx", including the Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=84515&tocid=0&query=kate%20chopin&ct= -- "American novelist and short story writer"); Encyclodepia.com: (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c/chopin-k1.asp -- "American author..."); The Columbia encyclopedia (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chopin-K.html -- "American author"), etc. etc.

So I'm reverting this page.

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). Lots of people disagree. But even if only a few people disagree, why would we deliberately choose the less precise term? Rather than argue about it here, I am only going to insist that you pipe the link. Rossami 16:45, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Awards[edit]

I can't let this go a decade without any "Talk"!

My last edit may look more substantial than it is (view history) because I introduced references to the one list John Crowley in the Locus Index to SF Awards in place of references to about six different annual awards lists at World Without End. At the same time I added one award (the French one) and I tried to make consistent the double-listing/referencing of award "wins". So the one reference appears about fifteen times in sections Awards and Bibliography. Meanwhile it doesn't appear even once in-line the body of the article. I don't endorse the approach but tried to complete it and clean it up (em-dash in place of two hyphens, no bare URLs, etc). --P64 (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Short fiction - Chapbook treatment[edit]

I just edited the reference to "Somewhere to Elsewhere" but refrained from other edits because I don't know Wikipedia's style guidelines. It would be nice if someone who does, upon seeing this, would make the appropriate edits.

The issue is Crowley's four chapbooks. Two were issued originally as chapbooks: An Earthly Mother Sits and Sings (DreamHaven) and Conversation Hearts (Subterranean); the former has since been collected (in Novelties & Souvenirs) while the latter has not been collected or anthologised. The other two - Great Work of Time and The Girlhood of Shakespeare's Heroines - originally appeared within larger books (Novelty and Conjunctions:39) but were then reprinted as chapbooks (Bantam and Subterranean); again, the former has been collected again, and repeatedly anthologised, while the latter has not, to my knowledge. The latter pair are not treated similarly, nor, really, are the former two.

Separately, I recently posted to the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written a fairly massive treatment of Crowley's fiction, including some possibly new material on his early work. (This is my source for "Somewhere to Elsewhere", which makes my change, technically, original research. Fine with me if you take it out on that ground, so long as the original text, which is simply false, and also unreferenced, isn't restored in its place.) I am, of course, not going to cite it on the page, but I wanted to point out its existence so others could decide whether to cite it.

66.212.78.220 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Joe Bernstein, not a registered Wikipedian; the page most wholly my work is probably that on the Judiciary Act of 1793.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Crowley. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus, supported by the evidence, is that this is not the primary topic. The dab page will move to the base name. Cúchullain t/c 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)



– Per WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC. This article gets 78 daily views, while John Crowley (biotech executive) gets 135 daily views and John Crowley (director) gets 108 daily views. I have no objection to John Crowley (writer) or John Crowley (novelist). 153.205.75.164 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Per nom, clearly not the primary topic and views [[1]] show than many users are going onto the DAB page, indicating that a significant of searches are landing on the wrong place. Many DAB pages only get around 2% of the views of the primary topic [[2]], this one is higher, but not enormous, however the fact that 2 of the articles get more views than the current PT indicates that the current situation is incorrect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Since there are a few challengers for "John Crowley". desmay (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The two instances of Johnny Crowley (while they are harmless, even useful, on the disambiguation page) do not actually contest this title. I came here through the disambiguation page myself - although I wanted this John Crowley, the only one I've heard of. We should not be mechanical - or tied to spurts of enthusiasm caused by news stories. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.