Talk:Peter Coogan

Published work

I'm wondering if my bibliography should reflect my published work more instead of the papers that I happened to donate to MSU while I was up there. I'm not sure about the Wikipedia propriety of adding content to my wikipedia entry. I've mostly done edits for accuracy and grammar. If anyone, especially the person who did the most recent edits to make the entry conform with Wikipedia's practices, could post a note on this topic, I'd appreciate it. I don't want to shape my wikipedia entry because I have an obvious bias.Petercoogan (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any potential conflict in simply adding to your bibliography. :o) Sorry I didn't do that from the start... ntnon (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The papers are tricky. Listing them yourself raises questions of whether other people would consider them to be notable enough for encyclopedic entry. Sticking with your published work gives a straightforward, objective list that would be harder for anyone to question on grounds of bias. The fact that you're concerned about bias, of course, speaks very well of you. MMMMMMMM (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't list any unpublished papers. I've seen biographical articles get deleted altogether over things like that. When the person covered in the article edits it very much, the possible conflict of interest can make some delete-prone voters in WP:AFD discussions say, "Well, if this person isn't notable enough for somebody else to write about him, he's probably not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article at all. I know I sure haven't heard of him" -- which is a shame sometimes. Ed Brubaker is just one example of someone who made a few edits to his own article before people jumped all over him for it. He apologized profusely (see User_talk:Ed_Brubaker) and has stayed away ever since. Hydra Rider (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely there's a difference between "unpublished and unavailable" and "unpublished, but in a special collection"..? When I read Superhero, I was interested in reading other things written by Mr Coogan. To be able to find a list here of the Michigan collection (now deleted, without full discussion) provided me with a place to go and seek out other things. Surely therefore, "Special Collections" are completely different from simply "unpublished." I don't think anybody is asking Mr Coogan to provide a complete list of everything he's every written about anything ever, merely that pertinent (and available, even if in a limited manner) things be listed.

If materials housed in archives are acceptable for citations, would they not be list-able in some bibliographic form..? ntnon (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My university's archives include letters from donors, minutes from committee meetings, sorority rummage sale announcements, and old banquet menus. I'm afraid that's not sufficient. Wikipedia does not include everything that's available in the world. I think very highly of Peter, and I don't want this article to get gutted or nominated for deletion over material that some Wikipedians will definitely consider unworthy of encyclopedic entry. Hasn't someone already removed that addition? That removal illustrates the concern I'm talking about. Peter was right to raise this concern. Hydra Rider (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've seen a lot of bios on small press authors get deleted altogether. Just being the author of a published book isn't sufficient for people to consider you notable enough for an article. Book plus conference should suffice, but don't make any risky edits you have to defend because they might lead to having to defend the existence of the article itself. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

If you have any other links (on Peter Coogan, the ICS or Superhero) add them in here if you aren;t going to use them in the article and editors can go through them and pick out what they can use.

Euqally if you have any other ideas on how to expand it then let us know. (Emperor (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Peter Coogan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070829042429/http://www.ahcca.unimelb.edu.au/Superheroes/abstracts-full-A-E.html to http://www.ahcca.unimelb.edu.au/Superheroes/abstracts-full-A-E.html#coogan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070829041330/http://www.ahcca.unimelb.edu.au/Superheroes/about.html to http://www.ahcca.unimelb.edu.au/Superheroes/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Institute for Comics Studies is no more

ICS is no longer active. Its homepage defaults to a spam gambling website - https://www.instituteforcomicsstudies.org/

It seems that ICS information should be re-written so that it is in the past tense. 217.180.192.168 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)