Jump to content

Talk:Naomi Novik

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

"First Generation"?

[edit]

A first generation American is someone who immigrates. His or her children are second generation. She can't be a first generation American who was born in America. Any better biographical info?

There is an ongoing controversy over this definition (try Googling "first-generation American", to see what I mean). The consensus (if one exists) is that the parents are "immigrants"; the first people BORN in the USA are "first-generation Americans". Hope that helps. Raymondwinn (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TemeraireUK5.jpg

[edit]

Image:TemeraireUK5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Naomi Novik and Transformers Fandom"

[edit]

Random trivia: Naomi is/was a very avid Transformers fan, and for a number of years in the 1990's was the headwiz of Transformers 2005 MUSH. She did a considerable amount of the coding and building on the game and was an active presence until the late 90's. Unfortunately there is inadequate sourcing for most of this, as it's tribal knowledge among the people who played on that game during that timeframe. The only thing that solidly ties her to the community comes from notes on various websites (such as the one above, or the Transformers Online Encyclopedia that are sourced to her, and from her posting history on alt.toys.transformers.

Attitudes toward fanfiction

[edit]

As part of the fan fiction project [1] I think that articles of SciFi authors who have been strongly involved either Pro or Anti fanfic should reflect that stance. Naomi, clearly, would be a "Pro" fanfic author. Any thoughts on where this information would best go in the sci fi authors template? Sherrold (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "SciFi" is perjorative. Please do not use it to describe anything more serious than Buck Rogers. And at that, I may malign Buck Rogers. As for Naomi Novik, I think some attention should be paid to the controversy surrounding the OTW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.68.103 (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, perhaps. I've never bought into the "speculative fiction" moniker if that's your preference; SciFi works fine for me. If there's controversy around the Organization for Transformative Works, it should probably be covered in its article (which as of this writing doesn't exist), unless it involves Naomi Novik more than the organization itself. - Fordan (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the controversy you're referring to the one covered in Legal issues with fan fiction, which does link to the non-existant OTW article? - Fordan (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the usage of the term "SciFi" has shifted. When I was active in Fandom during the early to mid 1980's "SciFi" was definitely a pejorative and looked down upon by the vast majority of fans. Pronounced "skiffy" and used mostly by what we called "fringe fans" and the media in those days. People who didn't know any better in other words. The preferred term was SF (Ess Eff). That said, "SciFi" has become so commonplace in the "real" world that it is more acceptable to use it and is the one you will usually hear. Older fans, especially literary fans that have been around a long time still tend to use, and to prefer, "SF".Hawkechik (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any controversy surrounding the OTW specifically (as opposed to fanfiction and legality in general) that is notable by Wikipedia standards. There's plenty of non-notable controversy, but information about fandom feuds belongs on the Fandom Wank wiki or perhaps Fanlore or some other fandom-related wiki. If people want to know about that stuff, they can find it easily enough without it cluttering up Wikipedia. Franzeska (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A number of the "reviews" and "external links" in the article do not comply with Wikipedia's policy on external links, in that they are not official sites of the article's subject and do not contain material relevant to an encyclcopaedic understanding which cannot be integrated into the article for copyright reasons. I'm particularly referring to the interviews and the reviews. Relevant information from these sources can be integrated into the article. Can I suggest editors take the steps to integrate any such relevant material? At a later date if the links still remain in the article in their current form they will be deleted in accordance with the external links policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

I see the COI tag has been added to this page. I'm curious what the frequent edits are supposed to be, and how they are considered problematic. Actually, very hard to see how they're problematic when it's not clear what they are. I'm skipping R and going straight to D of WP:BRD as a way to WP:AGF, but will drop back to the R if we can't get a conversation going. SamBC(talk) 13:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Naomi Novik. 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.

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) 21:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naomi Novik. 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) 06:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Novik&oldid=1208369777"