Talk:Tim Powers

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Post-Declare Work?

Anybody knows why his litterary production seems to have stopped with Declare ? Hektor 14:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new novel that should be out before too long, currently titled In Broken Calendars (several working titles were bandied about earlier). It involves Einstein. Powers has been talking about it on the Yahoo Groups list - see external links. As for what else he was doing in the meantime, I know he's got short stories here and there, so he didn't exactly stop. ←Hob 20:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Powers' Comments

I talked with Powers briefly at the ICon 2005 Festival, asked his permission to publish the photo on Wikipedia, and he said he has read this article and found it to be quite a nice one. Just FYI. Volland 19:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three Days to Never

I've added a stub for Three Days to Never. I invite everyone to contribute to it. --KNHaw 23:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? to Powers

Powers was born in 1952, so he was only sixteen years old when Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was first published. This article implies that he did not meet Philip K. Dick until he went to Cal State Fullerton, which he is unlikely to have done at the age of 16. When did Philip K. Dick and Tim Powers meet? Did Dick really dedicate the first edition of this novel to the sixteen-year-old Powers? Or did Dick add the dedication in a later edition? Has anyone seen a copy of any edition of this book that names Powers as the dedicatee? Paulannis 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB, 26 Sep 2007:

Both editions I have (London, Millennium, 1999; London, Harper Collins, 1993) show the dedication to Maren Augusta Bergrud, who I believe was the partner of Dick's friend Bishop Jim Pike and who committed suicide shortly before Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? came out. There is, however, a note at the beginning of Radio Free Albemuth thanking Tim Powers for the manuscript, which Dick had not published during his lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.7.120 (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As now described in the article text, the dedication to Powers (and his wife Serena) was not in the original Do Androids . . ., but in the post-1982 movie tie-in editions retitled Blade Runner. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.67.3 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WorldsWithoutEnd

ShSilver indicated that the WorldsWithoutEnd references aren't valid for the awards mentioned in the bibliography section, so it would be good to get new references added if they are proven to be inaccurate. The World Fantasy Awards and the Phillip K Dick Awards can probably link over to those relevant pages, I don't know about the other awards/nominations, but it shouldn't be hard to revise the links to pass muster. --05:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The information included has much wrong information to the extent that nothing that the user added could be considered 100% reliable as is, which is why I reverted it instead of tagging everything individual thing he added.Shsilver (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went and verified a chunk of the Tim Powers awards and they were accurate. Could you clarify precisely what information is incorrect? That way we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Preppy (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the Nebula dates are a year off. The Nebulas are awarded for the year prior to the presentation of the award (A Nebula presented in 2009 is the 2008 Nebula Award, see the discussion here. The cited website has all those dates incorrect. Shsilver (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it should best be corrected on the WorldsWithoutEnd site. Given that it's (temporarily) an error on that site as well, it seems like a good-faith mistake that would be relatively easy for the owners of WWE to correct. Have you/anyone approached them about that, or is that meant to be an 'exercise to the reader'? :) --Preppy (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information on Wikipedia is still incorrect, which is actually "the point of the exercise." :) Shsilver (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What specific information on Wikipedia is incorrect here? The titling of the associated year for the awards or ???. Could you specifically clarify exactly what elements you find to be inaccurate? That would leave other people the grounds to correct them. --Preppy (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My above comments do make that clear. The Nebula is named for the year before it is presented. The site cited on the page doesn't understand that and is titling the Nebula or nominations for the presentation year. Therefore, Dinner at Deviant's Place, for instance, was nominated for the 1985 Nebula (as this page has correct), not the 86 award. The page I just cited, also doesn't indicate some of the nominations listed, nor does it list The Anubis Gates as a nominee for any year (as was added by the previous editor has put in erroneously, backed up by comments on this website, leading me to question the veracity of the information he added, despite your spot checking. Shsilver (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I cleaned up the Nebula awards since that seemed constructive. It would probably be easy for anyone interested to clean up any other awards that have issues too. --Preppy (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds Without End had been listing the Nebula awards by presentation year, because they were following the precedent set by Locus, which also uses that method. I emailed them a couple of times, and they have agreed to use the official Nebula nomenclature, so the years now sync up. The only other issue specifically cited here is with The Anubis Gates. The comments you cited said "Strange that this didn't win any of the major awards". Is this what you mean? I have consulted other sources, such as here, that confirm the book won a Philip K. Dick award, and Locus confirms that it received the same two nominations (Locus Fantasy and BSFA) that Worlds Without End lists. Also, the source says the book didn't win any major awards, not that it didn't receive nominations.--Icowrich (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declare/Gilgamesh?

Can someone explain the Gilgamesh reference in the synopsis of Declare? Makes no sense to me, and no mention of Gilgamesh is made in the Declare article. In the lack of any citation or explanation, I am tempted to remove the reference, but will not do so without prior discussion. DaveSeidel (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response, so I will remove the Gilgamesh reference. DaveSeidel (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novels not in chronologic order

Is there any reason why his novels are not listed in chronologic order?? If no one gives a good reason I'll rearrange them 24 hours from now. Vmerling (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I forgot to do it when I said I would, but now it's done. Looks much better if you ask me. Vmerling (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful information regarding Powers and the book

I posted this information in this talk page

Though it's mainly concerning the Pirates of the Caribbean film, I do believe that information from this interview with Tim Powers could be useful here(and maybe the On Stranger Tides page)...especially with some of the info that contradicts the current info. Examples of good info being:

Disney optioning Powers' novel prior to the release of the second movie.
Powers thought that the book was used for the second and third films, particularly the first and second film(listen to the interview to get the idea).
Powers belief that the film wouldn't follow his book 100% except for Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth. His opinion on book adaptions from a famous line by James Cain could also be used.
The fact that Powers and his wife went on set during the making of the film, as well as giving Johnny Depp a copy of the book.

This is merely a suggestion that I sincerely hope you'll follow. While it is appropriate to use news articles and such, it'd be better getting the info from the author himself. 75.90.114.161 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literary movement

'Steampunk'?? Who put this in?? Powers is as far from this genre as one can get.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tim Powers. 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) 10:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tim Powers. 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) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To improve, with a plot summary, rather than to merge; independent notability through prizes. Klbrain (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An undiscussed merge of Last Call (novel) was made in March and recently reverted. This has resulted in a short edit war, with the anonymous editor somewhat out-gunned by an eminent reviewer and an admin. However, a quick dig into this shows that the merge was made and then the merged content deleted from here on the same day, leaving a one-liner. I have no great affection for the article in its current state, but it is likely notable enough for a standalone article and I feel that "merging" it and then deleting the merged content three hours later is pushing the boundaries a little too far. There was more content about the novel before the merge than after it.

So, "merge" or not? Is the one-liner an adequate replacement for the merged article? Perhaps the current article should be sent to draft as "with possibilities"? Lithopsian (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's won awards, not sure why people keep trying to remove/merge it. 136.34.181.216 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get too excited just yet. Nearly a month and nobody seems ready to go on the record as supporting a merge. At worst, the article will get sent to draft for a while, and probably not even that. I'll give it another week or so before closing. Lithopsian (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm the editor who made the original merge. The IP who reverted it had some kind of personal vendetta against me and went on a crusade to revert and run on all my edits. I took it to admin and got them blocked. Don't know if they still are, but regardless, count me in support of this merge. Alternatively, since the other two books in this trilogy have their own articles with notability properly demonstrated, I would also support a merge of all three into a larger article on the trilogy itself. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion seems to be languishing, but I will add my two cents. I believe it merits its own article, so I would vote against the merge proposal. It has won notable awards. I think it could stand to be expanded with a plot synopsis, at minimum.

If it were to be merged, I do think the suggestion for it being added to an article for the trilogy would make more sense. CapnPhantasm (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.