This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
We have a small number of suggestions from Susanlesch. I think the first one is a good point, but it will require additional research and i think we should avoid naming living relatives (because of WP:BLP) if they are non-notable. In fact, any non-notable relatives should get a minimal mention. Regarding the influences and influenced points, i don't think it would be appropriate to put prose in the infobox but i don't think there is much discussion of influences in the body of the article so this could perhaps be added. We would need to have research to back up the adding of female authors. I'm not sure why she has named Shelley specifically? I agree that the article would probably benefit from the inclusion of critical references and information (although i suspect that will be difficult for most of us to give a fair shot at ;p).
Woops, you are right about WP:BLP (not something to be mentioned unless the information is published widely). Shelley may be a stretch I don't know (the single female writer mentioned that I saw looking quickly is Nagata). Regarding the infobox, the sources are there and might be written as prose in the article (sorry I don't mean in the infobox itself). But again no need to listen to these, you probably have better ideas. Good luck. -Susanlesch 11:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a good source on his influences might be "Storming the Reality Studio: A Casebook of Cyberpunk & Postmodern Science Fiction." It's published by an academic press, and available cheap on Amazon [1]. It might be what's needed to push this already excellent article across the "FA" threshold. --JayHenry 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, so the question becomes: is it worth $7 ($3 for the book plus $4 for shipping) to read pages 21-32 and 37-47 and 52-62 and 67-75 and 78-85 and... But seriously, I've had this article on my watchlist for a long time and it's gotten really, really good. I putz around at WP:FAC from time to time and I think this is getting very close. --JayHenry 04:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Pay for information? Are you mad man?!
Not having your degree of putzing experience, I have been wary of nominating for fear of getting shot down in a hail of policy minutae. Anything obviously amiss with it from your perspective? Skomorokhincite 04:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think it would go up in flames at all. The featured article process has improved greatly. Now articles that are not yet perfect are given time to improve (sometimes the process lasts as long as a month to give it that time) and as long as the editors are responsive the process is usually very, very positive. I just noticed that this is currently on the peer review page. I'd be happy to give it a detailed review based off what I know (and I'm by no means the best at this, but I'll hopefully have a useful tip or two!) and see if I have any good advice for the FAC. I will need some time to read, ponder, and look at the sources and such. I may be able to do it tomorrow if work is slow enough. --JayHenry 05:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
I think this is ok, but according to WP:LEAD it should be three or four paragraphs. Maybe we could have something about the authors/others he has been influenced by (as in, have a section further down and summarise it in a paragraph in the intro)?
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
Not relevant.
The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, don't, won't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
There is some confusion on the use of WP:DASHes (there are spaced emdashes and unspaced endashes on page ranges, etc.).
Tentatively attempted.Skomorokhincite 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Think there are still some problems here. We aren't being consistent in the use of em-dashes. Since spaced en-dashes seem to be more prevalent as parentheses, i'm going to change the em-dashes to en-dashes (where they are for parentheses). CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to use one or the other throughout the whole article or just for page ranges? Skomorokhincite 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, is it appropriate to change the dash convention in direct quotes i.e. The Tatiani Razwhatever Gothic Motifs in the Fiction of William Gibson quote? Skomorokhincite 09:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:Dashes advises that one style should be used consistently in an article. I was only changing the parentheses, i think it would be ok to use em-dashes in page ranges (if that's what we're doing) as long as we're consistent in both (separately). Regarding quotes, i don't think it matters as we are quoting the content not the style - if it was a verbal source, such as a radio/tv interview, we wouldn't include conversational lubricants ('um's and 'ah's). CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the dashes, and while I suspect there might be issues with altering quotes, the most sensible option for now I think is to favour consistency over versimilitude. The old version of the quote is viewable in the article history if we need to revert later anyway. Skomorokhincite 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Make sure all dates in citations are consistently formatted, some are linked and other aren't.
I think we did this already (following AndyZbot's suggestions). The only dates that aren't linked should be those for which we don't have the full date. Do you think we should be linking years for those which we don't have the full date aswell?CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 23:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
e-mail exchange as a citation - how do you plan to justify that as a reliable source at FAC?
I just checked this and there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Nazi Lawn Dwarf Murders in the email exchange linked. The exchange is all about the X-Files episodes, i've therfore put it next to that temporarily. I've found what i think is a better reference for the lawn dwarf murders and will insert it shortly.CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 23:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we might want to replace this with something better. Presumably somewhere there is a mention of it in a newspaper/news site or official site? So far i've found it on Tom Maddox' site and on filmreference.com (although the latter might be getting it from wikipedia). CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There is some incorrect bolding in citations.
I think this is referring to the Technoculture reference, where the volume title has been put in the volume slot of the cite journal template (the other cite journal templates all have the volume number, so presumably they are alright bolded). I'm going to try and find the journal article to update this (there is also a problem with the retrieved date - it shouldn't have this unless there is also an url).CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Fixed - problem with this was it was using the cite:journal template when it's a chapter in a book. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this a date? Bolhafner, J. Stephen (3 1994). If so, it should be March 1994.
This is a purely aesthetic comment, but the bottom half of the page just looks disorganized and cluttered. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Any ideas on how to improve this? Skomorokhincite 02:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think moving the Agrippa cover down and possibly making it smaller (so that it starts below Miscellaneous other work) and possibly adding lines between the different types (novels, short fiction, articles and miscellaneous), so there is a clear delineation.
I'm not sure about the sprawl image though, maybe align it left? I know that all the other images are on the right, but i think i saw a style guide somewhere that suggested alternating... pfft.CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 16:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm viewing the article at a relatively high screen resolution, so I can't see the cluttering difficulty; the Sprawl trilogy image (at 300px) starts just at Novels and ends at Spook Country, with plenty of space in between. The Agrippa cover area is a little more cluttered, but the image does break up a lot of visually monotonous lists. I've avoided this thus far, but if we are to scrupulously stick to policy, I don't think either the Agrippa cover or the Sprawl covers could have valid fair use rationales, given the lack of critical commentary. Although the Agrippa cover particularly is a fantastic image, we may have to remove them for the article even to pass GA review, nevermind FAC. On a side point, I'm concerned about the rationale for the No Maps cyberspace screenshot. As the primary repairer of my hamfisted attempts at fair use rationales, do you have any idea on the merit of their justifications?
I suppose if necessary, we could also eliminate the Directors Guild quote. Skomorokhincite 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, you're right unfortunately. Sorry, i should have spotted that earlier. WP:NFC states that cover images and screenshots can only be used for identification with critical commentary. Currently we are using all three images only for identification, which is invalid. Also the images should have separate fair-use justifications for every article they appear in. I suspect that each image should probably only be used in the article about the subject it identifies. To be able to use them in this article, we would need to add critical commentary on the subjects. Which would be redundant, as they already have their own articles. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, you've been busy - good work! CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I haven't addressed many of Susanlech or JayHenry's suggestions because I simply haven't found reliable sources discussing the matters in question, but the article is coming along a little. I think Literary career and Visionary influences are the only weak sections, although the lede and Biography stil need expansion. Skomorokhincite 12:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Biography If the answers are known they'd help create a more complete picture of his life. :
Going into excessive detail in biography is something to be careful of - even public figures have the right to privacy. The people viewing this site are likely to be more interested in gaining a general view of the person and a more complete view of their achievements.
Is it known what the Appalachian mining town was that they moved to?
Was she still in West Virginia when he went to Tuscon?
Do we know why Tuscon?
Does he have any siblings?
If Gibson was 18 when his mother died does this mean he left high school just months before graduating?
The timeline here is a bit vague. Do we know how long he traveled in Europe and California after her death? Do we know what money he used for these travels? Did he have any money? Did he grow up with money after his father died?
Do we have any idea what he did from 1967-1972?
Did he meet his wife in Yorkville as part of this hippy community?
Do we know how long his second trip to Europe was? Big difference between a week-long trip to Paris and 9 months backpacking through 40 countries.
Do we know why he picked English?
Do we know what authors influenced him? Who he read and loved in college?
His influences are listed in the infobox but not expanded in the text.
Do we know what year he got his bachelors?
1977, i'll add this in a moment.
Do we know what year he became a full-time writer?
Does he have kids?
Gibson almost never mentions his family in interviews. I'd suggest we respect his privacy on that, and keep any information minimal. --Quiddity —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Literary career The reason we have an encyclopedia article on William Gibson is because of his literary career. Therefore this section needs to be where we hit our home run. So, with that in mind:
Were his early short stories successful at all? Where were they published? When did people start paying attention to Gibson?
Neuromancer is still his best-known work. So let's say a bit more about it. Do we know anything about his writing process? About how he got the publisher? Did it start selling well right away? Or was it once it won the awards?
Why have 6.5 million people read Neuromancer? Or in other words, tell the reader more about what distinguishes this book. We don't need a plot summary. But how about a basic plot outline and the details such as the timeframe in which Neuromancer is set, some details about the futuristic world he paints, the sprawl from Boston to Atlanta! How is it different from other science fiction (less aliens and intergalactic travel)? We read Gibson for his dystopian vision of -- not the powers -- but the perils of technology. There was no ghetto on the Star Ship Enterprise.
Neuromancer has it's own article and it wouldn't be elegant to say too much about it here.
Let's say just a bit more about the rest of the sprawl trilogy, a one- or two-sentence outline, and some sort of indication of to what extent the books were critical and/or commercial successes.
Critical success is something that would be more appropriate for the individual book pages.
I respectfully disagree. There's a tremendous difference between a writer who has written one highly-regarded book early in his career and an author who has written many highly regarded works. For a writer, I think it's essential biographical information. --JayHenry 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Same thing with the Bridge trilogy. Tell the reader a bit more about Gibson's vision of this future. What's significant and interesting about this world? Again, to what extent were the books critically and commercially successful?
And so take his recent novels and do much of the same. "Gibson viewed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks as a nodal point in recent history..." -- indeed! Pattern Recognition begins with Cayce's father disappearing in the attacks. What a bold literary maneuver for 2003! (As an aside: I haven't read Spook Country yet. I loved Pattern Recogintoin. Think I'd like Spook?) Also, it'd be good to know more about the critical and commercial success of these books.
Also, there are two critical communities for Gibson. The science fiction critics and the mainstream critics. I think we could say more about Gibson's cross-over (the quote about not being in NY Times for ten years is the right direction), what sort of reception has he received outside of science fiction critics?
I think we need more about critical reception - all of what we've been saying so far has been positive, presumably there are people out there who disagree? In the interests if reporting a complete view, we should summarise their opinions.
The Collaborations section is already quite good in my opinion. I didn't realize he actually wrote the Screenplay to Johnny Mnemonic. Again, as a major work of the author, we can say a bit more about this film. Has he ever commented on the screenwriting process? Is it something he'd like to do again? Again, what sort of critical and commercial reaction did the film receive? Was Gibson happy with the film?
Again Johnny Mnemonic has it's own article (two actually) and it wouldn't be elegant to expand on it too much here.
Influence and recognition is quite good as well. I wonder, could we start the section with a better quote than that from Literary Encyclopedia? "One of North America's most highly acclaimed science fiction writers" is almost an understatement.
Visionary influence could use just a bit more about the things he foresaw. He predicted an internet in neuromancer, but how was it similar and how different to what happened? What subcultural aspects did he predict? What were his predictions regarding reality TV?
(And because I don't want this left unsaid, the picture in the infobox is just stunning.)
Intitial responses by CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
To respond to several points in one place. I was quite aware that his books have their own pages when I made my initial comments. But consider the purpose of a comprehensive encyclopedia article -- if someone reads it start to finish, they should have a good idea of what made the subject of the article important. With Gibson, since that's his writing, it's important that the reader be able to learn something of his writing from reading this article. I'm not advising loads of information, a sentence or two on minor works, and a paragraph or two on major works. A basic overview of his writing for someone looking to get a feel of what his writing career was like and how it progressed (something, in fact, you couldn't get reading the individual articles). I think you'll find that two or three extra paragraphs in the literary career section of an author won't be inelegant (I do agree that too much expansion would be bad), and I think you'll also find that it will help this article satisfy the comprehensiveness criteria and earn the Featured Article status that it richly deserves. --JayHenry 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support brief sentences on derivative articles per original rationale. Skomorokhincite 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Inconsistency in references
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
There seems to be a problem of inconsistency in at least one instance of the references - the WG blog posts. Can someone better in the know than I on referencing issues (CaNNoNFoDDa?) have a look at these and try and work them into shape? Vielen dank. Skomorokhincite 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the first and second reference specifically; also, is it necessary/desireable to mention the website/blog? Skomorokhincite 05:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Geh, totally missed those two. I'll edit them to be consistent with the other bunch. I don't think it's necessary to state the website as that's contained in the url. Only the author is really necessary, but ive been adding the type of post with the others. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
McCaffery
In reading through Google Books copy of Storming the Reality Studio, I've found that the (arguably unreliable source) "Interview with Larry McCaffery" referred to as <ref name="project cyberpunk interview"> is actually a chapter from the (definitely reliable source) book, referred to as <ref name="storming">. Is there any way of easily converting or altering the project cyberpunk interview ref so that it is attributed to the reliably sourced "storming" ref, while preserving the link to the url which is of paramount interest to readers? I'm thinking we could either replace every project cyberpunk interview ref with a storming ref (using a search and replace tool for example), and preserving the link to project cyberpunk as an external link, or else we could modify the pci ref so that it states that it is excerpted from the book. I default to the second option, out of a conviction of external link minimalism, but I'm interested in hearing alternative opinions. Skomorokhincite 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You can use Show preview and the link next to the reference to skip to each occurrence, copy the text from immediately prior to it and search for it within the page code to delete/replace it (or just search for the reference name, ie <ref name="project cyberpunk interview"/>) CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic, exactly what I was looking for. I haven't altered the name of the reference seeing as its only visible to editors and is a shortcut description which needn't be strictly accurate. Skomorokhincite 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I wonder if you could tell me how you gathered the above info on Storming the Reality Studio? I use Ottobib which doesn't give OCLC info. Skomorokhincite 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, i got it off WorldCat, which usually has more info (although not so much in this case). The page numbers are from google books. Amazon can sometimes be good for getting stuff, but the only copies they have of this book are the second edition. Nobody seems to have the publication date. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposed split of Bibliography
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
In light of the suggestions of the peer review and the discussion above in favour of significantly expanding the article (new influences section, literary career expansion, and in my view a Style section), I propose the extensive Bibliography section be split off to its own article. The current size of this article is 50kb, well over the recommended size of 32kb. The proposed bibliography article would have space to list extensive publication histories for the works, as well as including work not listed here (various introductions to other writers books). Any thoughts, objections, comments? Skomorokhincite 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note:The vast majority of Gibson's works will still be directly accessible from this article via Template:Gibsonian. Skomorokhincite 13:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No objections here. It can always be merged back if so decided in the future.
I agree that it is desireable where possible to maintain naming consistency between similar articles, but we would want the title to accurately cover everything in the article. Assuming we remove the Neuromancer narration, omit the contributing vocalist work and include the lyrical contributions, the title would cover articles, novels, short stories, poetry, song lyrics, screenplays and introduction. I'm not sure "Bibliography" is strictly accurate.Skomorokhincite 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Support. Bibliographies tend to make a mess of articles and it would be nice to have one that was all prose. I think 'Works' probably covers everything (seems to work for Neil Gaiman). CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. It's not technically a bibliography, and I'm wary of restricting the article to list format when "Collaborations, adaptations and miscellanea" could/should conceivably end up there if the expansions are completed; therefore, the new article is at Works of William Gibson, consistent with Works of Harold Pinter, Works of Milton Friedman and Works of Adi Shankara. If there's an objection to this naming, I suggest a nomination en masse at WP:RM. Skomorokhincite 15:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point that I'd never considered. In our multi-media age "bibliography" is sometimes a bit imprecise, even for an author. "Works of..." is definitely your best bet for this article. --JayHenry 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Internet
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Congratulations to the editors, wow this article is moving fast. Just a note regarding the date of the Internet and the galactic network I am sorry for any errors, corrections may be in order. A similar and unrelated question came up in discussion of software about this time. I see a DEC tribute to Licklider linked from his Wikipedia article for example mentions a 1954 paper by Farley and Clark, another one I have not read. -Susanlesch 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, when peeps are adding references can they please be sure to reference the actual work they are reading rather than any work cited in them? This is a wikipedia policy. I'm also going to change Intergalactic to Galactic again, which it'll have to stay unless a reference can be found to support it (the current reference says Galactic). If you want it to be Intergalactic, you'll need to change the reference (it also doesn't support the involvement of BBN). CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 01:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the internet discussion is worth getting into detail in the William Gibson article. Skomorokhincite 05:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't really necessary to go into detail about the origin of the internet here, a link to a relevant article should suffice. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Skomorokh and CaNNoNFoDDa, yep not necessary. Sorry for assembling during your drive. OK to omit any and all edits about this I made. Draft here is getting closer maybe. In case it is needed it should be easy to cite. Good luck. -Susanlesch —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for the fantastic image of Cerf. I spent hours trawling through Flickr searches for "arcade" "videogamer" etc. and found nothing of comparable quality, great work!
Regarding the Internet passage, I don't know how reliable the sources are or how much including them here is in danger of running foul of WP:SYN. If a version you're happy with can be come to which is reliably sourced and still has Gibson's visionary influence as its subject, by all means let's include it, but otherwise in my ignorance of internet history I'm inclined to rely on the sources that explicitly mention Gibson's relationship to developments in the field. Skomorokhincite 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Or Steven Poole, who studied video games in Trigger Happy, wrote in 1999, "Gibson aficionados will...." <whatever for example, like the "pleasing inventions" like the nanofax for transporting solid objects over large distances>.In All Tomorrow's Parties (1999), Gibson imagined "an intelligent wall-covering that eats graffiti."ref name nearing which ties in reality TV I guessThanks for the link to WP:SYN, I learned something important there. Sorry I also don't know the history of the Internet (I got onto this track trying by making the mistake of trying to cite an addition on 14 October about the subject "predicting" the Web and before it the Internet etc. which was added because of some requirement to expand, etc. (and might be virtual reality not networks that the subject imagined, I don't know). That statement stood out in my reading—which was likely at fault—so all this stuff was added and above draft created (that only mentions Steven Levy's book of the same year, the Time cyberspace cover from 1995, and two works by Licklider, Intergalactic Computer Network and Man-Computer Symbiosis, or something) to put it in context. So if what was there before 14 October was too short, one way would be to revert back to before I started and built back up somehow, say looking quickly at two of the sources, one could say <And whatever>...in Antony Johnston's 1999 interview with Gibson in Spike Magazine. And so on for other sources. By the way Poole's words are so close to a direct quote I can add quote marks in what's there now. But I really can't add much and hope no damage done. -Susanlesch 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC). Moved captions to images. -Susanlesch 10:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the reality-tv thing might be referring to Idoru, but i'd need to check that. Without a reference to support it, we can't say what it's referring to without it being original research (bizarrely). CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 08:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Lede
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Does anyone feel up to rewriting the lede of this article? At the moment it consists of two pretty poor paragraphs, one with overly-specific and probably false claims (Gibson only notable for cyberspace & Neuromancer), the other a vague whitewash I stuck in at the last minute so that this would pass GA. What's needed for an article of this length is three or four paragraphs summarizing the main body of the article (see WP:LEDE) that gives a comprehensive overview of the subject. I'd do it myself but I feel too bogged down in the minutae to get any sort of perspective on the subject—unable to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Any takers? Skomorokhincite 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try to do it today. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks very much! Skomorokhincite 18:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Lead is done. Not brilliant but at least it is double in size. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Wasssupwestcoast. Skomorokhincite 19:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Does anyone know of a good reference that would cite both Coupland and Gibson on their popular cultural influence: i.e. their neologisms like "generation x" and "cyberspace". Someone surely must have contrasted and compared the two together? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've trawled through the 100+ references in this article and can't remember seeing any extensive comparison with Coupland, but a Google Scholarsearch might help. Good luck, Skomorokhincite 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've found a scholarly reference in Hollinger, Veronica. Edging Into the Future: Science Fiction and Contemporary Cultural Transformation. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 288. ISBN0812236572. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Unfortunately, at my university library, the book is out until April 2008! But from a quote in this review, the book might be interesting for Gibson and Coupland fans/scholars: "Veronica Hollinger, meanwhile, moves beyond the conventional boundaries of SF, looking at the work of mainstream writer Douglas Coupland in relation to the cyb-ur-text Neuromancer, by William Gibson, in order to speculate on the relation of contemporary culture to notions of the apocalypse."[2]. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Expansion complete: next phase
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
As of today, the problematic Lede, Biography, Visonary influence and Literary career sections have been significanlty expanded to the point of near completion. The biography almost ends in Gibson's late 20's, but this has been resolved by renaming the section "Early life" and continuing the narrative in "Literary career". While the Sprawl/Difference/Bridge subsection is somewhat abrupt, this section is also radically expanded. Visionary influence (appended "and prescience" to allow for prediction and causation) is much more cohesive, and through Wassupwestcoast efforts, there now exists a substantial, easily iunderstandable and summarizing Lede. The article is quite long, and may need to be culled in places, and while the Influences/Style/Themes section remain unrealised, these factors are not absolutely critical for FA status I expect.
So the question is where to proceed from here; should we hold off on nominating until we cannot conceive of how to improve it further, until all the issues raised by the peer reviewers have been addressed, or do we simply dive into the FA nomination? Skomorokhincite 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Good effort people! I'd like to go through the references again soon (as they've been added to substantially), editing them for consistency and adding as much info as possible. For the record, i think the 'format' field in cite templates is for what document type it is (ie pdf, html implied) so it wouldn't be 'correct' to use it to describe the source (such as 'interview' or 'blog entry') which is why i've been adding that in the title field with the title in quotes. Do we want to decide a rule for this, rather than doing them all differently? Do we need to say what type of source it is?
I'm not going to do any work just now, as my computer has become an object of others' desire.
Regarding the FA, i think we could probably dive right in and take in the comments of FA reviewers as we go, as the article seems to be beyond the standard of many up for nomination (or passed). However it may be an idea to go through what we have right now first, as there has been a flurry of recent edits which may have introduced or obscured minor errors. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, totally snowed at work at the moment, i'll get round to checking the reference templates at some point... CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I'll have a look at them myself but I'm meaning-orientated rather than structure-orientated so I'm not sure I'll catch everything. Skomorokhincite 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Specific issues
The Salon references are inconsistent. Skomorokhincite 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I'll need to spend some time on them, as there are quite a few, but i can't do it just now. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Short stories need specific publication details (i.e. Omni May 1981 Issue 4 rather than simply Omni) either here, Works of William Gibson or on individual pages. Skomorokhincite 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Done It appears Omni does not have issue numbers, but months of publication have been added to Works of William Gibson. Skomorokhincite 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Consistent referencing of books: ISBN, OCLC where possible. Skomorokhincite 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I (the copyeditor) have made my first pass. There are few technical errors, but I admit the writing style takes some getting used to -- it reads as if someone's tried to jazz things up a bit, and it's a bit heavy on slang for my tastes. I'll probably leave this aspect of it mostly alone, though I wonder how all the FAC folks will take to it. A second pass remains to be done, probably tomorrow or the next day.
I'm also having issues with the size of the article -- I've had several database errors trying to save my work. (Yes, I did lose a bunch of stuff...) I'm not sure what could best be cut, though. atakdoug (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Another pass now done, but I'm realizing that a number of sentences and paragraphs need to be reworked before this article satisfies Criterion 1(a). There's too much here that's hard to follow; I'll see if I can't ameliorate the problem. I am going to attack it yet again in a day or two. atakdoug (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your work so far, atakdoug. Unfortunately I think a significant portion of the changes to simpler language mislead the reader and are not consistent with WP:V and WP:OR when checked against what the sources say; one of the reasons the language is so difficult to parse is that it's largely drawn from academia. I'll hold off revising until you feel like your contributions are done. Regards, Skomorokhincite 13:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Father's death
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
The article currently states that WG's father died in 1956, when he was six. This is consistent with the Literary Encyclopaedia article by Tatiana Rapatzikou (who also wrote a book we are referencing and seems credible), however it is inconsistent with the interview referenced at the end of the sentence and the biography on the official site, which are also reliable sources. Is there any way to confirm the actual year (or ideally date) so we can post a correction to the relevant source(s)? CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's most unlikely that Gibson's d.o.b. of 1948 is incorrect, and it's also very unlikely that Gibson misremembers what age he was at the time of his father's death. That would put the date of death at '54 or '55. However, in terms of authoritative sources independent of the subject, the Literary Encyclopaedia biographical entry has more weight than an autobiographical note, or a NYTM interview. Doing the sensible thing and taking Gibson at his word seems in violation of Wikipedia policy.
I can't think of a superauthoritative source, such as an authorized biography or even a source that notices and mentions the discrepancy. So I propose we teach the controversy and say something like "His father died when in Gibson's early childhood,<FOOTNOTE> choking in a restaurant while on a business trip.<existing ref>" The footnote could say just what you say above - Source X says a, while sources Y and Z say b. Is this the best option? Skomorokhincite 22:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fair. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. I've also emailed The Literary Encyclopedia about the discrepancy; hopefully they'll care enough to investigate the matter.
Do you think it's a problem that the footnotes are out of sequence, with footnotes arising earlier in the article listed later in the Footnotes section? Skomorokhincite 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any policy about it, and the link will always go to the right one... It might be neater for them to appear in numerical order, but it's not essential. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I'll leave it be so unless the FA commentators object. Skomorokhincite 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Interviews in external links: all, some or none?
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
There is an issue as to criteria for inclusion of interviews in the external links; it seems an arbirtrary selection given the hundreds of interviews Gibson has given. Are these ones in some was canonical or of standout quality? WP:EL suggests links to reliable sources should be integrated as references where possible (as we have done with most interviews in this article). If we are going to allow interviews in unreliable sources in the external links section, we need some sort of rationale as to which to include. Alternatives would be to include none or all of them. Thoughts? Skomorokhincite 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
At some point I believe I removed all the duplicate links to interviews (that were already being used as sources, and hence in the references section too), and suggested that the remaining items be examined for citable material so that they could also be cited, and moved to References. Or at least I meant to! Or that was a different biography... but it's still a good idea :) -- Quiddity (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. These are the remaining interviews from which citable material has not yet been gleaned:
If anyone can make use of these interviews, they can integrate these links into the references at a later date, but I have removed them fom the external links section. Skomorokhincite 11:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Two new links:
[3]Spook Country Interview on KCRW's Bookworm, 2007
[4] "Pattern Recognition" Interview on KCRW's Bookworm, 2003
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was re-reading this article again tonight and I'm so impressed with how far it's come (it was already quite good when I read it last time a few months ago). I think it's close enough to Featured Status that it could probably be nominated successfully. No matter what state an article arrives at, people will have a lot of feedback. Over the course of the Featured article candidacy, somebody will likely request a copy edit or point out something in the MOS that was missed, but as long as people have a little bit of time to work on the requests, I think objections could be overcome. I think the article is quite close and would be happy to help out during the FAC. It can be a frustrating process for sure, but it'd be nice to see that great picture and this article on the Main Page, wouldn't it? --JayHenry (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced this meets 1a, 1d, 2c or 4, but I think you're right in that the best way to perfect the article is to have it looked at by educated minds. Thanks, Jay. Skomorokhincite 13:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Family
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I understand from a note above that the information on Gibson's family is limited out of a desire to respect his privacy. I am aware of more information than is in the article, and I don't have a strong opinion about what should be included, but I do think it is a little odd to mention both his wife and child and not name them. I think it would be reasonable to give his son's birthdate, too. Mike Christie(talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I also understand the desire to respect a living person's privacy, but it's already easy to determine the names of his wife and children. I don't think even Gibson himself could be offended to find that information in the article. I don't think we need to give any more information than that. I think a birth year would probably be sufficient for his children. --JayHenry (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose given that the information is in the public domain and that Gibson has featured members of his family prominently in his writing there's nothing morally contentious about including basic info. My only objection is that I don't find it interesting or notable who some famous persons' family members are, provided they are not notable in their own right. I do think a birth year (if you can source it) would improve the Early Life section, as Gibson's role as a stay-at-home father seems to have had an importance influence on his development as a twentysomething writer. Regarding names; is there not a policy on this? WP:BLP-related perhaps? Skomorokhincite 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, WP:BLP does have something to say, under Presumption in favour of privacy: "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." As I don't think naming Gibson's family adds significant value, I oppose naming them in this article (and on this talkpage). Skomorokhincite 04:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not a sticking point for me. And I didn't realize BLP had that particular proviso. I also think I agree that the age of his children is more significant than their names, for the reasons that you cite. --JayHenry (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My initial comment was motivated by the odd reading experience that the current version generates. When one reads "a Vancouver girl with whom he subsequently traveled to Europe", one assumes that because she is not named, she is not a significant figure in his biography. Very shortly thereafter the reader comes to "The couple married" and that's a jolt; you realize you don't know his wife's name. I think many readers would do as I then did and pop back up to the TOC to see if the article included another section that might give the name.
So I'd be OK with not including the name, but I think it is quite surprising to the reader to mention his wife so specifically and not name her. If the story of the trip to Europe is worth including, I think she can be named without violating BLP; if it is better overall to remove the story, I think that could be OK too. For the children, OK. One option (not a big deal if you don't like it) would be to just state that he has X number of children, and give the genders and dates of birth? The article need not include the names. Mike Christie(talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think, upon consideration, that it is somewhat strange talking about the wife so much and not naming her. I don't think we should name the kids, but possibly should weave their births into the narrative where relevant. Does anyone have a citation for this info? Skomorokhincite 12:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree, the wife should be named. It was jarring that she wasn't. I found it disrespectful, personally. Tempshill (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
disambig/delete
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following links need attention:
-artwork
-hotshot
-posture
-road map Randomblue (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Done Thanks for catching those. Skomorokhincite 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Picture width
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Yes, Image:William Gibson by FredArmitage.jpg is striking, but has too much blackspace on the sides and in the original 300px incarnation was making the infobox too wide. OTOH, Image:Gibsoncropped.png is cut too close to his ears (and what's the changed format?); good for Template:Gibsonian but not that great for main infobox. And now, with default 200px width, Armitage's pic has a small face drowning in darkness. Could somebody make a compromise version? --Malyctenar (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't personally have a problem with the original image, but I'm open to a tighter version. скоморохъ 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think square format would be about right. --Malyctenar (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would go further than Skomorokh, and say that I strongly prefer the original. The image is a really striking image. The reason for cropping is to make the picture bigger/less blackspace, but the fact is that even if you crop it so that it's square it only makes Gibson's head about 3 millimeters taller. In my opinion, it's not worth mutilating such a wonderful image for such little gain. Other than this article, there's nowhere to display it. --JayHenry (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JayHenry; the original is striking, and cutting it doesn't improve it aesthetically or make the face larger for the viewer. I suggest leaving it as it originally was. Mike Christie(talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I do believe that's consensus. скоморохъ 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll admit that 2½:1 is certainly majority; but with all due respect, your claims about there being no gain are mistaken. Armitage's original pic is 800 × 533 pixels landscape-oriented; the section taken up by the face itself is, of course, portrait and corresponds to the 234 × 359 dimension of the cropped picture (apparently no resizing was done). People infoboxes are suited rather for portrait images: as it is now, using the landscape in default (and hardly expandable) 200px width leads to the face size of some 86 px in height (about a quarter of which is actually taken up by neck; it's even less for the forehead-to-chin mugshot). This is way less than usual with other infoboxes. And in fact, the template which uses for its image the narrow crop with width set to 100 px has the face about 150 px tall - almost twice bigger; that's absurd though not readily visible as they are separated by the whole length of the article, compare
Current 200px landscape in infobox
Current 100px crop in template
How 450px square would look in infobox
Even trimming mere 100px of blackspace from each side of the image would make the headlet a half again bigger; and I think we could easily go to something like 450*450 without harming the impression and contrast, which would make the infobox head about as big as the template one - well, let me try showing you without having to actually edit and upload the pic (though I'm not responsible for exact centering, now how your browser might misinterpret this): (moved above by Skomorokh, fixed and described by Malyctenar)
And as for JayHenry's "there's nowhere [else] to display it": come on, man; unleash your imagination, Edit with Boldness! It's CC, and really something to boast about: we're free to plaster it all over the Wikipedia. There are dozens pages dealing with Gibson or cyberpunk, most of them woefully underillustrated. --Malyctenar (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the images to a gallery because of bad craziness with forcing the browser to deal with all that code. I prefer a landscaped version; I don't think you'll win anyone over with the 450*450, but perhaps if you cropped some of the lower section of the original so that the space above his head and below his chin is equal and the overall picture is something like 16:9?скоморохъ 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Malyctenar, but it is I that say to you, "unleash your imagination!" :) Do not let the little gray infobox make you believe that a beautiful landscape must be mutilated; trick you into believing that "biggest possible face" is our goal! Perhaps I wasn't clear, and for that I apologize, but if I were to summarize my belief, it would be this: the most prominent image on a biography should be the most striking image we have of a person. I'd really rather lose the infopox than chop up this image, which is (considering Gibson's works) really a piece of art, lovingly crafted -- it's better than his dust jacket photos! I suppose we could crop David's Napoleon in his study to make Napoleon's face bigger too. I'm strongly opposed to that as well :) --JayHenry (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Having just experimented with some test crops, I have to chime in and say I agree with leaving it as the landscape picture. Whilst the initial impact is perhaps less, we have a strong precedent in Wikipedia of using very small thumbnails (default is 180wide), in order to encourage users to "view full" more frequently. Using a cropped version would lead a click-through to just a larger version of the cropped version, which would be a shame. My 2¢. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I, too, strongly prefer the original version. There is no comparison between it and the cropped versions. --RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Skomorokh: What kind of crazy, bad browser are you using that it doesn't like a div much simpler than those used everywhere on Wikipedia? You broke the example, I fixed it again. As for your suggestion: I'm no graphic artist, so don't expect details from me. Any crop improves the face size, square came out as a kind of compromise between the original landcape (which is actually less wide-angle than 16:9 would be) and the face's natural portrait orientation. (To be continued when I get back from lunch.) --Malyctenar (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Mea culpa, I was clearly typing blind that day, although the div was swimming somewhere around the bottom right corner of the page as I recall. The suggestion that you try cropping the image again was simply for your benefit, as everyone else seems happy with the original. The 450px version holds up reasonably well, I would not be opposed in principle to a compromise between it and the original.скоморохъ 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Done. It's not technically a bibliography, and I'm wary of restricting the article to list format when "Collaborations, adaptations and miscellanea" could/should conceivably end up there if the expansions are completed; therefore, the new article is at Works of William Gibson, consistent with Works of Harold Pinter, Works of Milton Friedman and Works of Adi Shankara. If there's an objection to this naming, I suggest a nomination en masse at WP:RM. Skomorokh incite 15:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Skomorokh incite 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. I've also emailed The Literary Encyclopedia about the discrepancy; hopefully they'll care enough to investigate the matter.
