Talk:Golden Crown Literary Society

Goldie awards

SF

2008 Crown Of Valencia Catherine Friend Bold Strokes Books

2008 Queens Of Tristaine Cate Culpepper Bold Strokes Books

2008 Rebels' Quest Gun Brooke Bold Strokes Books

nominees Dynasty of Rogues. Jane Fletcher, Bold Strokes Books

Face of The Enemy - Sandra Barret, Regal Crest

Away From The Dawn - Kate Sweeney, Intaglio Publications

In The Blood - Rick R. Reed, Regal Crest

Sister's Flight - Jeanne G'Fellers, Bella Books

2007 Sister Lost, Sister Found Jeanne G'Fellers, Bella Books

2007 Sword of the Guardian Merry Shannon, Bold Strokes Books

2007 The Empress and the Acolyte Jane Fletcher, Bold Strokes Books

2006 Dark Dreamer Jennifer Fulton, Regal Crest Enterprises

2006 No Sister of Mine Jeanne G'Fellers, Bella Books

2006 Protector of the Realm Gun Brooke, Bold Strokes Books

Nominee 2006 - New Exploits 2: Bell, Book and Dyke - Golden Crown Literary Award Finalist, Lesbian Fantasy

Amicus Humani Generis, SB Zarben,P.D. Publishing Inc.,

2005Battle for Tristaine Cate Culpepper, Justice House

2005 Wizard of Isis Jean Stewart, Bella Books

2005 The Walls of Westernfort Jane Fletcher, Fortitude Press

?? Banshees honour, Lady knight, the spanish pearl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 4 March 2009 (UTC)

References

External links modified

24 January 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Golden Crown Literary Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513165936/http://www.goldencrown.org/awards.html to http://www.goldencrown.org/awards.html When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

2018

The 2018 / 14th awards were announced July 18, 2018. Source: Lesbian literary organization presents annual awards (July 18, 2018). Out & About Nashville. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

past winners

The past winners of these awards have been deleted from the article, which is not appropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not news reporting, and lists of winners should be kept (see most of our other award articles for examples.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect use of minor edits

It has come to my attention that I have been incorrectly marking my edits as “minor.” In fact, they have virtually all been major and I apologize for this. I will not make that mistake going forward. Sorry for the mistake and inconvenience. Thanks, V.F. Dodge V.F. Dodge (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Restoring the advertising tag

An editor recently removed the tag saying that the page reads like an advertisement; I am restoring that, as the problem remains.

Despite some good effort from folks, this article is reading very much like a brochure created by the group (unsurprisingly, as there appears to be a high degree of conflict-of-interest editing and relying on group-provided materials as sources.) Just for example, the very first sentence -- Golden Crown Literary Society (GCLS) is a nonprofit organization supporting an international community of readers, writers, publishers, editors, artists, narrators, and fans devoted to increasing the diversity, accessibility, quality, and visibility of sapphic literature (including lesbian, bisexual, queer, nonbinary, trans, and all diverse identities falling within the spectrum of women-loving-women attractions) -- in addition to including more than a dozen commas, has the claim that this supports the listed people, that those people are devoted to the cause, that GCLS is effective in covering all the diverse women-loving-women identities. If this were more in the tone of most Wikipedia pages, the opening line would be more along the line of ''Golden Crown Literary Society (GCLS) is a nonprofit organization for those with an interest in sapphic literature.

The article then quickly goes into reprinting the organization's mission statement, which, as the essay at WP:MISSION suggests, is a poor way of communicating what an organization is and is rather putting forth how they wish to be seen.... which is again a form of advertising.

And then we're on to GCLS’s Annual Conference is the organization’s premiere in-person event for bringing local, national, and international supporters together to celebrate sapphic literature. Given that we've already established what the GCLS is, does this really say any more than "The GCLS holds an annual conference."? Terms like "premiere" ad nothing, and "local, national, and international" is puffery (and even more meaningless as there has been no statement about where GCLS or the conference are based, so who is local? Who is national?)

Some other examples of puffery/ad-like talk, just from a quick skim: "master classes", "holding true to the mission", "Thanks to", "recognize authors of quality literature",

That a lot of this information is taken from the GLCS website, which raises the question of WP:DUE - basically, what Wikipedia thinks is worth covering is not what the group says about itself, but what reliable, third-party sources say, because that suggests importance. It also avoids some point-of-view problems.

I appreciate the enthusiasm of those editing for this organization, which I expect serves them well. But if the page feels like it was crafted by volunteers on the GLCS's behalf, people are likely to discount it.

(And as a side note: if the editors want to serve the goals of the GLCS, I bet there's more than a few Goldie winners who don't yet have their own Wikipedia page, but do have enough proper sources about them to meet our guidelines for what authors are considered notable enough for a page.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (August 2023)

User talk:V.F. Dodge suggested on their talk page they have a conflict of interest, as yet undeclared. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing the awards

@V.F. Dodge: noting your concern in your edit comments, I wanted to say that using the GCLS website for the source of who won the awards is fine... as long as we have third-party sources showing us that the awards are important, and that seems to be covered by the Advocate and AfterEllen sources. First-party sources are usable for non-boastful information, so long as we have information from other sources suggesting that that aspect of the subject is of import. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it. And I have added several others as well. I understand the distinctions you point out, but I expect this concludes my GCLS efforts. Im tired. I’m hoping others will pick up the slack. Thanks for your help. V.F. Dodge (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Print newspaper sources

I went looking through some print archives to see if I could find some in-depth coverage there. What I found:

• Reasonable depth, but probably just a press release: [1]
• passing mentions that could at least be used to verify some simple facts: [2], [3], [4]

Use as you wish! (And as a tip for those doing websearches: about 40% of the time, the group is misidentified as "Gold" rather than "Golden".) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Reaction to extensive updates

Nat, I hope this topic finds its way to helpful you and, if not, to another Wikipedia editor. As this Talk history shows, I was a Wiki newbie in August who did not understand the issues brought up at the time. Once I got over my snit, I studied what I was supposed to do long and hard. My final updates posted today are the result of those efforts. If you find the time, please look at what I have done. If it satisfies earlier concerns, perhaps you or someone else could remove some or all of the "multiple issues" note that comes up when accessing the GCLS page. If not, please let me know what I can do to change things. Basically, I have tried to source statements independent of GCLS and Wikipedia as much as possible (50 in references in total), remove self-promoting, advertising-type passages and mission statements, establish the importance of the organization through additional citations and sourced attendee reaction, and a few other things that don't come readily to mind at the moment. Again, thanks for your earlier help. Your positive attitude encouraged me to try at least another round of updates. All the best, V.F. Dodge V.F. Dodge (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@V.F. Dodge: You have done some good work and have improved both tone and sourcing. I have removed all but one of the tags from the top of the page. The tag that remains, the Conflict Of Interest tag, inherently cannot be removed on your edits, because even though you are clearly taking effort to be evenhanded in your editing, your position as a volunteer does give you a recognized conflict. With time, hopefully some uninvolved people may come and edit in ways that are sufficient for us to say that any concern has been lifted.

If you'd like to continue improving the article, here are some things that could be addressed:

• You include reviews from several people's blogs about the group's events. Personal blogs are what we consider "self-published sources", and can only be used for reference on a topic if the person posting the blog is the topic (and even then not for boastful material), or if the person is a recognized expert on what they're being cited for (and even then they can't be used if there is a statement being made about a living person.) Unless these people are recognized experts on literary events, their views should not be cited.
• For the section headers, you are using Title Case with all the important words capitalized. Per MOS:HEADINGS, they should use Sentence case, with only the first word and any proper nouns capitalized. So instead of, say, Myron G. Krebbs Award Winners, we would recognize that "Myron G. Krebbs Award" is the proper noun name of the award, but "winners" is not and should not be capitalized.
• In your tables, you put the headers in ALL CAPITALS. Per WP:HEADERS, they too should be in Sentence case. (Per WP:ALLCAPS, we basically never use all capitals.)
• Some of the lists might be better as tables.

Thank you for your good work, and I hope that some of what I've said is of value. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Nat, thanks so much! I’ll study all your points tomorrow and try to make appropriate corrections. Perhaps if I explain that the people with the blogs who talk about the conference are all published author with literary expertise, would that help? And the board member quoted also has expertise in diversity and inclusion, which is the main point. I think I can fix the wrong title caps, etc., fairly easily. Thanks again, especially for removing the tags. All the best! I’ll let you know when I finished the next edits. 2601:483:5580:1A0:81D3:9C6A:5959:B95A (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again! V.F. Dodge (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Merely being an author does not make on a recognized literary expert, and even being a recognized literary expert would not make one an expert on conferences. This is really the part where there may still be some legit advertising concerns about the article, particularly with the conflict of interest. The board member being quoted is a different situation, because it's not a self-published source; we have the Philadelphia Gay News (which at least at first glance looks like a "reliable third-party source") interviewing her, telling us that she is worthy of attention, and specifically from their text it's because of GCLS that that is true. It is a source that lends to rating the group as notable. However, they're not verifying her statements, merely that she made them, and the statements you've chosen are a board member speaking promotionally about the group. It's not a great inclusion, as much as I want to find some use of the source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So, at the bottom line, I guess I should remove all these quotes. I put them in to establish the importance of the conference to people, but I guess that didn’t work. Also, is this sentence case, not all caps, all okay for the tables: Ann Bannon Popular Choice Award

thanks! V.F. Dodge (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ann Bannon Popular Choice Award is fine, as it's all a proper noun.

I would suggest changing the header "AUTHOR / NARRATOR / EDITOR / ARTIST" to "Recipient" for simplicity's sake.

-- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks a lot. I hope to get title case done correctly as well. Take care. V.F. Dodge (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. I hope I got the cases correct. Thanks. V.F. Dodge (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It is better. You still have GOLD SILVER and BRONZE in all caps the two times you list this year's Bannon awards... which I doubt need to be listed twice. And there is still a section header 2023 Winners and Cash Awards, which should be 2023 winners and cash awards. (There will always be something to make better in any article; that is just the way of it. Wikipedia is never finished.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ain’t it the truth! I will fix these mentions. I did list the AB winners twice, actually on purpose so they would be in the list of past winners when someone updates them next year. Let’s hope I’m still alive this spring but that someone else takes over the task! Have a good day and thanks again. V.F. Dodge (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, you gave me a great idea about how to rearrange things and not repeat the AB winners. I’ll do that after coffee and a walk. 😊 V.F. Dodge (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)