Jump to content

Talk:Dan Abnett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Under the entry for Horus Heresy, it says its a spinoff of the Horus Heresy trading card game. It is not affiliated with that card game except that both the card game and the book are based on the event of the Horus Heresy in the warhammer 40k universe. Don't know how to edit it...

Bibliography

[edit]

Would it be possible (and fair) to trim this section down. Including only the "top" 5 or so works in each area? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God knows how you would define the "top" 5 - I'm pretty familiar with the range of his work and I'd not want to attempt it.
However, it did strike me a while back that his prolific writing has led to the point where we need to split the bibliography off to List of works by Dan Abnett (precedents being things like List of works by Alan Grant and List of published material by Alan Moore. I don't think it'll be controversial. It also means we can expand the biography more and by its very nature the more important works will appear there and we can let the separate article deal with the details and be a more complete list. If that seems like a good idea I can sort that out pretty quickly. (Emperor (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
sounds reasonable to me. By "Top 5" I literally meant the top five in order that they appear in the lists but, I see what you mean. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've split it off. We can not work on expanding the biography (I have Thrill Power Overload and will see if there is anything interesting there that I can use as well as generally keeping an eye out for any interviews which can help flesh things out more. There is plenty of scope for a potential for a good comprehensive and well-rounded article now the bibliography isn't dominating the space (it was 38 kb itself when split off). (Emperor (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oh and I also started: Category:Works by Dan Abnett hooked in the novels subcat and added one on comics. I've spread them around a bit and seem to have hit the major works but I may have missed some. (Emperor (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Biography = CV

[edit]

anyway to get some rewriting/reformatting done so we can make the biography section more like a biography? You know with like born here, went to this school, got his big break here, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can do - the only problem is that it can often be tricky tracking down such information and the biography may often focus on his career as it is something that you can at least prove. I will, obviously, keep an eye out for information but I have been seeking details on various aspects of Marvel UK history (including talk to a few people who were involved with it) and it is a bit of a black hole, which is a pity as they published a lot of important early work from other authors too, like Grant Morrison and Alan Moore. I am still plugging away at this (important here as Dan Abnett was also an editor there). (Emperor (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Maybe we can start by creating a format with sections and such and fill it in as we go? Brief introduction "Dan Abnett (born....) blah blah blah", than Early Life/background, Career, Personal Life, etc. sort of mirroring some of the better biography articles? I'm sure some of it can be found on his site and primary source is probably okay as a beginning? How I wish Marvel UK still existed in some context, I'd much rather work there than here :o) Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure go for it - I'm a big believer in imposing structure on articles like that as it focuses the sections and encourages people to fill in areas. Your best bet for content is strip-mining some of the interviews in the external links section - just quickly skimming through them I see the 2000 AD Review one has some information on his early interest in comics and how he got his start at Marvel UK. Obviously we'd ultimately want more (and possibly the viewpoint of others because if Thrill Power Overload shows anything it is that different people remember things differently) but it looks like there is enough to be going on (I'll look in TPO for anything on him joining 2000 AD).
And yes I agree about Marvel UK - so much potential and it seemed to go down the plughole so quickly. I seem to have skipped reading the beano and Dandy and jumped straight to growing up reading 2000 AD and Marvel UK and the latter going belly up seemed to be a waste of great potential just when they were about to really get big. I also think you'd have a fight on your hands over any job spots ;) (Emperor (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reference sections

[edit]

maybe we should consolidate it into one section and use the inline citations? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why. They have proved useful in what he did when and with who. Obviously we'll want to expand the inline citations but there is no reason to get rid of the references (and in fact the guidelines say you should include them). (Emperor (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think it may be a case of my understanding of "references" really and I openly admit I'm not the most experienced. I just think we should have 1 reference section which would for instance be formatted in the {{reflist}} format thereby incorporating the inline citations used within an article. "notes" and "references" are basically the same thing as far as I can tell but the "references" section at the moment doesn't show what is referenced from where (if that makes any sense). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "reference" section is for general references that cover a broad area, largely for things like WP:V. The footnotes are to reference any specific points or statements. There is no problem with having both (see WP:MOS) and you'll find them on a lot of the reasonably well referenced comics-related articles. I will go through them and trim them down as we'll only really need the more general ones here. (Emperor (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Leader - "his first original fiction"??

[edit]

I take exception to this wording, as it implies that the fiction Mr. D. Abnett has produced prior to his Angry Robot is not original, thus somehow less noteworthy, of less literary worth and not the product of his own mind. His work for the Black Library and others have on occasion been nothing short of revolutionary and ground-breaking in its scope and vision, staying true to the concept of a shared unreal world while immensely furthering the boundaries and immersion of those worlds. Mainstream literary criticism may hold the worlds of comics, science fiction, gaming as somehow the dirty low-brow underside of fiction writing, but for a writer with multiple titles on the NY Times Bestseller list, can we please get over this? Thank you. Pär Larsson (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with your defence of Mr Abnett, and your defence of comics, sci fi, and gaming, however I think it is obvious that "original fiction" refers to Intellectual property created by Abnett, as opposed to his work with Warhammer, etc, which he doesn't own and didn't create.

JackStonePGD (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect graduation date

[edit]

The St Edmund Hall website lists Dan Abnett as being in the class of 1984. At Oxford, the 'year' of an alumnus is the year they matriculated (commenced their studies), not the year they graduated. Please correct the article, either to say that he graduated in 1987 (Oxford BA degrees take 3 years) or that he went up to Oxford in 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.83.9 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have a source provided for this, per WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS. Nightscream (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Do you mean we need a source for the date? There is already a source referenced in the article. If you mean you need a source for the fact that Oxford 'years' are matriculation years - you could look at https://www.alumniweb.ox.ac.uk, or refer to Foster, Joseph: Alumni oxonienses, University of Oxford. Bear in mind that there is currently no source given for the assertion that 1984 is a graduation date, which suggests that the author may have made a (culturally relative) assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.83.9 (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't know if this counts as a source, but Dan Abnett's LinkedIn profile lists his years at Oxford as being 1984-1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.83.9 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a source for his year of graduation, though we'd also need a source for Oxford's "years" if we are to remove the information currently in the article. The page you linked to above is to the main Alumni page of Oxford, which doesn't mention the year structure. You also didn't include a link to his LinkedIn profile. If the LinkedIn profile can be verified to be this Dan Abnett (and not another person with the same name), that might work.
Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts, which makes it easier for everyone to know who they're addressing. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry : LinkedIn: [1] The source for the year is already in the article - it's reference 3, which points to Dan Abnett's page on the St Edmund Hall website. The website simply refers to Dan Abnett (1984), which the author of the article clearly took to mean his year of graduation, assuming that Oxford acts in the same way as a US university would, but with no source to establish that this is correct (Would this be WP:NPV?). I think if I follow you correctly, you're saying that we either need to find a robust source that unambiguously defines the date and what it means, or take out the entire sentence in the article (and presumably therefore the entire 'early life' section). Is that correct? PS As you've probably spotted, this is my very first attempt to edit wikipedia. I had no idea it was so complicated! 24.247.83.9 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Boolean[reply]

LOL. Don't worry, you're doing fine. (Although if you don't mind, I put your post script before your signature, just to make it easier to discern each person's messages at a glance. Generally editing other's comments is a no-no, though, so if you object to this, I guess you can revert this. It just makes it easier for me to discern everything in an organized manner.
NPOV is not really an issue, since that refers to when statement or wording on the part of an editor conveys the editor's personal opinions or the appearance that Wikipedia is taking a position on a matter of opinion. What is an issue is WP:V--specifically, reliable sources, and the clarification of material in it.
I don't know if we should remove the entire section, since St. Edmund Hall is obviously a reliable source; it's just we should be clearly convey what that information means, without relying on the personal knowledge of editors, since that's original research, which isn't permitted. I'm not sure if a LinkedIn profile would be considered reliable, as I'm not sure if there would be a concern that the Dan Abnett and this article's subject are one and the same, but I've started a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, to ask about this, just to be sure.
In the meantime, I added the clarification and that source to the article. Hopefully it'll be considered acceptable.
Btw, if you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Abnett. 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}}).

checkY 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) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Abnett. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dan Abnett. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dan Abnett. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Abnett&oldid=1233247380"