Talk:Steven Erikson

Importance Level.

I upgraded Erikson's literary importance level to high, from low, in general literature, and to core, from mid, in fantasy genre literature. I think this is justifiable, as many of his peers regard him as one of the greatest ever fantasy authors, and as one of the best living authors in any genre. High acclaim for an author who is still writing his first series. He is an important figure in the literary world because he broke the mold in a sense. He went against tradition in the fantasy genre, to great success. Wikipedia uses "The Lord of the Rings'" as one of the examples of a core piece of literature. I mention this because there are many cases where his peers and literary critics have said that his books are as well written, if not better, than Tolkien's, and are just as important, as fantasy was on a downward spiral.

Anybody disagree with the changes? Alan16 (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that some of those changes you have made are subjective. Erikson has, in comparison to some other fantasy authors, not sold a vast number of books and his name is not normally dropped into conversation by other writers regularly. He is name-checked a lot by modern epic fantasy fans and critics, but in terms of overall impact he has not had anywhere near the notability of say George RR Martin, Robert Jordan or Stephen Donaldson. I certainly would not rate him as a core fantasy writer at this time nor as one with a measurable impact at all on 'general literature'. He's a big fish in a small pond (epic fantasy) but has not had a big impact on the wider field. That said, the new additions and sources are all very well-done and add some needed critical assessment to the article. You may encounter some notability issues regarding blogs, though, since Wikipedia seems to have conflicting opinions over the viability of large blogs with large fanbases (like Pat's Fantasy Hotlist).--Werthead (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but I do have a couple of things I'd like to respond to. I hope you aren't arguing that Jordan should be considered important to the Fantasy genre; if you've read them you'll know there kind of "throw away", in the sense that they haven't had any particular impact. I think the 250,000 number is a bit inaccurate - it is from 2006 I think - because I have noticed a lot more talk about him than before. However that sort of info doesn't seem to be a thing that publishers... publish. And with Pat's Hotlist, I think it can be argued to keep it, as it is well regarded through the Fantasy genre. Thanks for the postive review of the edits. Regards. Alan16 ^talk_count 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Regarding the Jordan situation, his importance to the genre, irregardless of whatever critics make of his work, has been noted by many, including John Clute's Encyclopedia of Fantasy and many writers, such as Guy Gavriel Kay and George RR Martin. Like or hate it, as the biggest-selling epic fantasy series since Lord of the Rings, The Wheel of Time opened doors for a lot of fantasy epics that were larger than the standard three volumes. I vaguely remember something about Bantam looking for a huge fantasy epic of its own shortly before they signed Steven Erikson, so it could be argued that the Malazan series itself was picked up when it was due to Jordan's influence. The fact that the WoT books themselves get pretty bad towards the end has no real bearing on the books' bearing on fantasy publishing.--Werthead (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

In my view, as per WP:RS and WP:YOUTUBE, the YouTube interview most likely is not a reliable source. I'm sure others can be found in their place. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll state my view - the opposite of Truthkeeper's - so that an outsider can make a decision. In my opinion, the YouTube sources are as reliable as sources come. The words are straight from the authors mouth, and although transcriptions might be useful normally, the sections are short (most sub 2 minutes) so people only need to listen to 2 minutes of speech to get the important info. Copyright isn't an issue as the copyright holder uploaded them, and they therefore become free use. I'd suggest that WP:YOUTUBE is really for people who upload clips of shows etc.. There is no problem with these links. Alan16 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I feel that YouTube is not a reliable source. It has all sorts of fraudulent videos and while the words might have come out of the author's mouth, I don't believe that it is a reliable source and I'd rather not use it. Please find some other source. However, I'd advise you seek the help of someone more experienced like Kevin. Thanks. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems quite ridiculous. YouTube sources are generally not reliable, but common sense surely suggests that this is reliable. It is from the most reliable source possible - nothing, absolutely nothing, is more reliable than what he himself says. How is a published source going to know more about a new contract than the man who signed the damn thing? Sorry if this seems brash - it has been a long and annoying day. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi Alan16. I'm sorry you've had an annoying day, but the fact is, author interviews exist on YouTube, but generally are not used here as sources per WP:RS and WP:YOUTUBE. I only brought up this matter as you mentioned to another editor that I feel the article is ready for GA review, which is not the case with the sources as they are now. In fact, my recommendation is to remove the blog sources as well. As I mentioned elsewhere, there should be some good secondary sources available soon when the newest book is released next week, and at that time reviews, etc., can be used. In the meantime, as I have time, I'll add templates to the existing sources to move along the work. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Away from YouTube for a second, fantasybookreview.co.uk is a well respected site, and I think calling it a "blog" is a bit unfair. Alan16 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've set up cite web templates; added syntax for multiples; and left in the information from Fantasybookreview. I have removed a source that was a bookstore, but I'll find another to replace it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, so you have. My mistake. Nice work with the templates and stuff. Alan16 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To me it looks as though the issue should still be subject to WP:Verifiable and similar. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The YouTube sources are verifiable. If people still don't think that the YouTube sources are RS, then why not just leave them in, but double them up with another source. I still insist that these are the most reliable sources available, and common sense tells me that they are reliable. My understanding of WP:YOUTUBE is that it is mainly a copyright issue. So you can't, for example, say that in television programme X, character Y does Z, and then link a clip from YouTube due to copyright breaches. Alan16 (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Youtube would probably best be described as self-published (possibly more appropriate - WP:SELFPUB). Given what the videos are being used for (claims by the author about his upcoming work), that the claims are not unduly self-serving, and that they're "factual" claims (in quotes because the work is not yet released) about what he expects to do, it seems to me that it's akin to using an author's blog. You'd use it for stuff like this and little else. Ideally, a text source would be better if found though. I've rewritten a bit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that that is a good point. What Erikson says is both independently verifiable and "not unduly self-serving". And they are factually accurate - he has signed a contract, and there will be 6 new novels (two trilogies) and 3 new novellas. I don't know what the policy would say about the idea I suggested - leave the YouTube in with a text source as well. Either way, IMNSHO they are completely reliable. Alan16 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be much happier with a *good* text source, and throwing the Youtube interviews in the EL section. If we've got a good source on the contract (Publisher's Weekly, Amazon, straight-up newspaper reporting) that's much better as a source. I will be pedantic here - these would not be considered reliable sources by my definition, I'd hesitate to use them for much else and I'd certainly rather replace them if possible. Ideally, these should be trusted about as much as a press release from Monsanto about the safety of their latest GMO crop, now featuring genes spliced from an angry catfish. We can use them, but ideally we shouldn't and what we've got here is about the very limit of their usefulness. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with WLU. As soon as the book is released (next week) reviews will be available from reliable sources such as Publisher's Weekly, etc. Although, as I'm writing, I realise the release date in the US is later, but nonetheless, good sources will come available very soon. At that point, in my view, moving the YouTube interview to the EL section is also a good suggestion. I'll keep checking for reviews and add sources as they come available. Thanks to WLU for the rewrite. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are reviews available already (two that I know off) - the publishers need to get people to make the comments that they shove on the covers. It isn't released until next year in America and Canada. The only problem I have with wanting to replace the YouTube sources - especially those on the contents of the trilogy - is that we will be simply be using a source where someone has written down the stuff from the YouTube video. We will just be using a transcript masquerading as a reliable source. Alan16 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It may also be perhaps worth noting that a YouTube video of a Barack Obama speech is used as a reliable source on the Barack Obama page, in similar scenario to the Erikson page - i.e. a video where the subject of the page is announcing something about themselves. Alan16 (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And I realise that because something is used on another Wiki page, it doesn't mean it is right - however the Obama page gets 40 times the traffic the Erikson page does (and I checked, it is 40 times more visited). Alan16 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise the logic appears somewhat convoluted, but if "someone" were to use the YouTube material and publish in reputable journal/newspaper, that would be considered a secondary source which is preferable to using a primary source. In these articles the books themselves are the primary sources, but in the main article about Erikson, Erikson himself would be considered the primary source. See here about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Also, if reviews are out (I haven't the time to check) can you post them here and I'll create a working references section in the article. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I know all about primary and secondary sources, I was merely stating my frustration about the whole process. I'll post the reviews later tonight. Alan16 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to the reviews! Also, I apologize if I sounded condescending. As it happens I understand your frustration, but in the grand scheme of things probably not worth being frustrated over-- and they're still in the article!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add them. Here is one which is by a well known site but is "technically" a blog and the other review I thought I had is actually for a book of the same name by a different author. I know you're not being condescending, it has just been an annoying couple of days - still there for now, but what's more important is that we have a reliable source so the sooner we get a matching reliable source the better. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Forge of Darkness by Steven Erikson (Kharkanas Trilogy #1)

I found a whole lot of references to the new book by Erikson, the first of which is this one. The problem is that I'm seeing a whole lot of information on blogs, which don't fit wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Some sites, though, like Pat's Fantasy Hotlist, seem pretty reliable. Is it ok to use a few like this to talk about the book? Trevor coelho (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Donaldson's assesment

With respect to this content I'll make a comment here later today.  Sandstein  14:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steven Erikson. 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://archive.is/20130202022835/http://www.sfbc.com/ecom/pages/nm/product/productDetail.jsp?skuId=1000846474 to http://www.sfbc.com/ecom/pages/nm/product/productDetail.jsp?skuId=1000846474

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism?

Why is there no section or even mention of criticism? 142.181.247.43 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)