Talk:The Accidental Time Machine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Accidental Time Machine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Notability and Citations

This article does claim notability as a runner up for the Nebula award but doesn't provide a citation for that claim. That being the case, it has failed to prove its notoriety. I'm going to tag this article and give the creater/editors about a month to get it worked out.

I did find however that the author has some sources to prove notoriety. If you prove that the author is notable, you can use his notoriety to claim the notoriety of the book. OlYeller^Talktome 17:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited claim, I'm not sure how this could be non-notable. Haldeman is a fairly prolific author who has received many awards. Also, I disagree with your placement of the unref tag on the article when it was, in fact, referenced. It would have been more appropriate to use refimprove there. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read more carefully you'd see that I said the subject is notable but didn't verify its claim. Also, you just placed the references that are now in the article (see here). I also said that the author is notable. Notability wasn't the issue here, the issue was that there were no references to verify the claims made by the article (it being on amazon doesn't prove anything as it doesn't claim that the book won the Nebula award). I understand being defensive about an article that you created but please be more careful when making claims that someone else is doing something wrong. I was trying to be helpful. OlYeller^Talktome 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I did partially misread that. In my comment, I began with "Cited claim," which I meant to be taken as "as of this writing, I recently cited that claim." I can understand your confusion, however. I did clearly misconstrue your comment as saying the article was non-notable, not that I didn't substantiate that. Sorry, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the parenthesised numbers? (42)

So are they page numbers for the quotes (if so, what edition of the book?), or just some spies using a wikipedia page as a numbers station? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parallelisms and Comparisons with H.G. Wells's Time Machine

This whole section appears to be original research and personal opinion, and it repeats itself on multiple points. It seems unsuitable for Wikipedia. Would anyone care to work on it? Otherwise I'm inclined to yank it. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]