Talk:Author

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Amero-centric[edit]

Deep linking to an authors books[edit]

I'm not sure the convention for pages in author are where this would be discussed, but what is the policy about adding deeplinks to an authors books on online bookstores? I was interested in adding this to an authors page, but opted not to without knowing what the wiki convention is. Does anyone have any feedback on this issue?---- {{unreferenced}} If someone knowable has some spare time: Please insert a paragraph on the notion of "corporate authorship". Tipically in the U.S., they use the term "work for hire" (USPTO). What does it exactly mean? - Does it apply only when there are employment contracts, or does it apply also for mandated work?

Another term, someone could elaborate on is "collective authorship". Thanks.

Means that work done while working for others (you may even have not been asked to do it) or during a time-frame you were paid to work for others (if no restrictions were stipulated on a contract) belongs to the one that has paid you.
Collective authorship of a work means that the work belongs to more than one author.

I don't know who you are 209.105.200.36, and I don't mind changing from List of novelists to authors (not that it is worth the trouble), but it is totally uncalled for to remove all the one-line comments and I am going to put every one of them back. What you have done is damn near vandalism.

I'll type them all in if I have to, but I'd rather just go back to a previous version. Ortolan88 19:37 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

Please check the article now to make sure I restored the version you speak of. I am checking now to make sure no valid edits were made to the "authors version"--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC). --mav

209, This is much better. In fact, it is excellent! I do think the lists on the list should be named list of biographers not biographers, but otherwise this is a great start on what I was just talking about in a long comment in Talk:List of novelists. Please take a look, and join in an effort to get all the names on all the right lists. Ortolan88 09:21 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

Good work and cooperation! Need help. There is a great list of "Poets" showing by country etc., far better than what I have under "Authors". Can't figure out how to get rid of mine and connect to this really good list. Also, maybe it should be called "Lists of notable or noteworthy or famous or something" to avoid overload.

There are lots of articles that say things like Robert Frost poet, so we want to keep a page that will pick them up. It seems to me that here is what we could do at that point:
  1. Keep the page Poet and use it to define what a poet is, does, how they are different from other kinds of writers.
  2. Perhaps also put some of the very best, known all over the world, poets on that page by name.
  3. Put the rest of the poets on List of poets, and then subdivide that list into List of Persian poets, List of imagist poets, whatever.
Something like that. Ortolan88 10:50 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

I shifted some things in "Poets". See if this works or improve on it.


As Author (also by 209.105.200.xxx) included a longer list,

Docu 07:20 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Link suggestions[edit]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Author article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Author}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correction[edit]

It appears that this page claims that Bob and George had the first author character. This is a very common misconception. The first author character was in Neglected Mario Characters. I'm going to correct this. -Sprited Spheniscidae

Fallacy[edit]

The information contained on this page concerning the New Criticism is incorrect; New Criticism is actually quite the opposite of what is here presented, the Death of the Author is actually a similar view to many of the New Criticism.

On "Fallacy" and Addition[edit]

I agree that the statement on New Criticism's view of authorship is wholly inaccurate (we might cite the New Critical discussion of "the intentional fallacy," which already has an entry), but I don't think Barthes's views in "Death of the Author" resemble the views of the New Critics. Barthes's views are much closer, it seems to me, to post-New Critical views, particularly structuralism and reader response criticism. Also, I think it's important to point out that "author" is not applied solely to literature. For example, there might be a meaningful link from this article to the entry "auteur theory". Jk180 21:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 5ljsfgs

Pseudonyms[edit]

It would be useful to further comment on authorship with regards to the use of pseudonyms. An important question in that field would be, how the adoption of a (non-narrator) persona by a writer affects the authorship of his/her text: Is a person writing once under his/her real name and once under an adopted name still the same author; or is it two different authors that are writing and just happen to spring from the same person?

On rhetoric[edit]

The lengthy middle section on Barthes & Foucault's ideas seems geared towards a specialist audience already steeped in the rhetoric of deconstruction and literary theory. Oughtn't it be revised for a general readership? Also, what about the counter-reaction of those who oppose the 'Death of the Author' theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Author/Writer different?[edit]

Heard that Author is one who gets published and paid for it! While writer doesnt. Is this true? Thanks!(DatedbmeforfilesPMThur.Aug20,20092stcent.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC"X")SoCalKid (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wages[edit]

Packaging Companies make the statement that authors don't get paid wages false. Shouldn't this be mentioned? I'm not sure how valuable the wages section is at all to this article. I'd vote to remove it.AnjouRd —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

how[edit]

when and why did the author start writing childrens stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.39.216 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) '

Old Vandalism[edit]

Back in this diff various elements of vandalism occurred in the article. Including the addition of the word "jujor". Since the word sounds a bit like legal jargon it seems to have hung around since then, or maybe it was simply never noticed. In any case, thought I would explain why I took it out, and warn others interest in the article to keep an eye out for other remnants of past vandalism. Thenub314 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Authoress??[edit]

Does anyone ever use this term? Really? I certainly don't think it should be one of the first things you read as the cite references a brief use in 1490s. KevinCarmody (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo stack excessive[edit]

On my 1366×768 lappy (and any screen wider) that column of right-floating file:|thumb|ers exceeds the height of the article text, which ends before the top of the Mark Twain thumbnail. So basically there is a big gap after the “external links” section, a full screen where I see nothing but Twain and the other-wiki-domain boxes (which I understand can be condensed together with a unified template). And to answer your next question: no, this doesn’t mean you should mean put half of the portraits on the left and add a few more. Because that would look awful. Please don’t. ―cobaltcigs 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, why are there so many pictures? Is this like that argument about cat pictures over on the page about cats? What an author looks like is probably the least important thing about this article; they look like a human. ~z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.134.196 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes - all or all but one should be removed, as the previous suggested they're just people! — Saltmarshtalk 07:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


Agree -- all but one should be removed. Wahrmund (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image[edit]

The lead image was changed from a portrait of Mark Twain to an image of Toni Morrison, then reverted. I believe the original edit was constructive for a few reasons:

  • Primarily, the image of Morrison shows her acting in her capacity as an author (giving a talk, which is a key activity for contemporary authors), while the Twain image is simply a portrait.
  • The image of Morrison is more dynamic and of higher quality.
  • Using Morrison promotes the goal of diversity of representation on Wikipedia, since women and people of color currently make up disproportionately few lead images in articles like this one.
  • Morrison is more than sufficiently notable. While Twain's work is no doubt great, Morrison has won a Pulitzer, a Nobel, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Both Twain and Morrison are widely taught in high school and college in the United States.

I suggest that the change to Morrison be restored. Hammerout (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to +1 the support for this change. I am going to re-add the Twain image to later in the paper (he is significant for being an author in multiple genres), Sadads (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have also added another image, and expanded the captions to make them more informative, Sadads (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Author. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Author. 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 on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 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) 14:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)