Talk:Anne McCaffrey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Red Star Link Removed

I removed the link to "Red Star" as it had nothing to do with the "Red Star" described in her stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.4.20 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo

I understand/appreciate the desire to have an up-to-date photo. However, I feel that a candid, particularly one which seems to emphasize age and frailty (and perhaps confusion or discomfort?) is less respectful than so prolific and (at least at times) so entertaining a writer deserves. Might it not be possible to obtain a different one? One that's fairly recent, but not quite so intrusive-feeling? Surely her agent would be glad to oblige? 09:08, 29 Jan 2006 tygerbryght

I see that unfortunate photo is still there. Why not use the one on Fantastic Fiction? [2] It's obviously not that old, and in it she is groomed and poised. If I understood how to change photos, and had a clue about the permissions on the other photo, I'd change it myself. I find the snapshot currently in use on this page more than distressing; I find it offensive! --Tygerbryght 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone found a better picture. The old one really was dreadful. Vgranucci 03:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a vast improvement. Somebody told her what they were doing, and that alone makes the difference between atrocious and acceptable. However, I've finally heard back from Megan, who does her email. An "approved" photo should be forthcoming soon. I dunno which one this will be, but it may be one that also appears on her official website. I'm not sure who will post it, but it will be either Megan or me. It will certainly be one taken when she knew it was happening, and was prepared. I'm hoping it will be the one from her website where she's in her rose garden.--Tygerbryght 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, what photo are you talking about, but i think it's still the same photo (the one on which she looks suprised(?) and/or discomforted(?) ). It's 2011 and it's still there.77.253.3.118 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This photo is insulting. It should be changed Willuknight (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are only two photos currently uploaded. This article uses the better / less worse of the two. Bluap (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I cropped a photo I found here, uploaded it to wikipedia (? I guess). Rest in peace. 310498709835a (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this needs another update. Since she has passed, I wish to believe that it is more respectful to use a younger picture of her. Those here are really saddening considering what a successful career she had. I found one: https://mbalit.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Anne-McCaffrey-1-740x740_center_top.jpg

Does anyone know how to upload another photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KFlann34 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

One can only put photos with a free license on Wikimedia Commons. That means that the copyright holder to a photo needs to re-license the photo before it can be uploaded. //Vätte (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@tygerbryght @Vgranucci @Willuknight @Bluap @KFlann34 @Vätte

@P64 The image has been annoying me for years, so as a last ditch (Weyr :-)) attempt I have asked the Facebook Pern group to upload photos that they own copyright to, and encouraged them become editors. Have explained copyright, that their work may be reverted, to add references and non opinion content. [WP:BITE]] Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I am uploading the photo used in several of her obituaries, particularly Time (https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102136_2102341,00.html) and used by her agent (https://mbalit.co.uk/client/anne-and-todd-mccaffrey/). This photo was used in at least one of her books and features her holding one of her Maine Coon cats. I don't have a date on it, but it is probably the best photo of Anne available and as it was used with her obituary, it is the most appropriate photos to represent her on this page. Yotsuya48 (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yotsuya48 But it's copyright Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Anne McCaffrey: Rescue Run

In your initial entry for Anne McCaffrey, you included the title

• Rescue Run (1991)

I've looked in Contemporary Authors, Books in Print, Amazon.com and her own website, and this book is not in any of these sources. Where'd you invent this from? Hope you don't mind if I delete it. (I hate it when I accidently invent cool book titles. They're *so* hard to find in the library!!)

Here's the entry from the Locus SF index,

Rescue Run, Anne McCaffrey (Wildside Press, Dec ’91, $40.00, 126pp, hc); Reissue (Wildside Press 1991) sf novelette that originally appeared in Analog, illustrated by Pat Morrissey, signed by McCaffrey, and limited to 500 copies; second printing. --Imran 18:42, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This isn't listed 3/4 above so neither standard booklists nor the author considers this a book, but collectors and other rabid fans might, so it should at least be listed here. (This moved from respective user talk pages.) I'd very much like to know the history of this, i.e., was it included in a subsequent published book? --ssd 01:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I seem to recall (and I havent got the book in front of me) that "Rescue Run" is the first short story in Chronicles of Pern: First Fall... IIRC the plot resolved why there was no response to the distress beacon sent of in Dragondawn.Iainscott 15:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rescue Run is unusual among books on the shelf at my local public library.

(from the front inside jacket) First published in Analog magazine, Rescue Run was later released in book form by Wildside Press. This special, jacketed Book Club edition [Newark NJ: Wildside Press] features decorative page borders plus ten interior illustrations by noted SF artist Pat Morrissey.

(from the back inside jacket) Jacket art by Pat Morrissey. Book design by John Betancourt.

(from the title page) "Rescue Run originally appeared, in slightly different form, in Analog and is copyright 1991 by Anne McCaffrey."

The title page is the only page of front or back material. There is no ISBN and no date given, although that inside jacket blurb implies that the "decorative page borders plus ten interior illustrations" are new.

The back inside jacket blurb does say, "Her novel All the Weyrs of Pern appeared on every single best seller list for weeks." That helps date the edition.

The back outside jacket is blank except for the number 05448 in lower right corner. --P64 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

Short stories

A lot of her novels originated in her old short stories. For example, this page lists how Dragonflight, The Rowan, and Damia are all derived from short stories. Additionally, there are a number of short stories in the Dragonriders of Pern series that I don't see in that list (such as The Littlest Dragonrider, or a similar title, with K'van as the protagonist, and The Girl Who Heard Dragons, which is listed as a novel but I thought was a short story/novella). I'd like to see more discussion of this trend of hers, but I don't feel I've read them recently enough to be knowledgeable.

Additionally, is Get Off the Unicorn part of the Dragonriders series? I thought it was a collection of random short stories, perhaps with one or two in the Pern universe, but some others set elsewhere.

--zandperl 01:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right now, the page only lists books. Note that the book The Girl Who Heard Dragons is a short story collection, including the title story. Next time I edit the page, I'll see if I can mark short story collections as I find them. (Yes,Unicorn is a short story collection including several Pern stories.) --ssd 01:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A fairly comprehensive list can be found at the ISFDB,

http://isfdb.tamu.edu/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Anne_McCaffrey

--Imran 02:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just checked there. Cool site, but it is both incomplete and out of date. It lists some "short fiction" but not all, and is not (always) clear what is a short story from a magazine and what is a book. In addition, books that are listed as compilations on other sites do not have their components listed there. It's still an interesting reference, just not a complete one. I'm hoping to keep at least this page a complete list of her available books...

Note also, some of her books are clearly story collections, while in others, the stories are closely related enough to make it hard to distinguish a story collection from a collected novel originally published serially. This will make it difficult to pick them out for marking sometimes. --ssd 03:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

Fantasy or Science Fiction??

While going through the List of fantasy authors, I've found a few that did not write fantasy and only wrote Science fiction. Then I come here and read carefully, and it does not even mention Science fiction.

As far as I know, Anne McCaffrey writes (with the exception of the Romances), Science fiction only. Of particular note is that the Dragonriders of Pern series is definately science fiction, although with a few strange twists that might confuse people into thinking it is fantasy. (The dragons are actually genetically engineered, and except for the actual teleportation and ESP which are not explained, everything else in that series is very hard science fiction.) --ssd 23:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The line between fantasy and SF is pretty blurry. The difference is mainly the explanation, since the result is identical. ie

 *Dragons breathe fire (long explanation involving chemical breakdown)
 *Dragons breathe fire (long explanation involving drawing mana from the aether)

Many bookstores classify her stuff as fantasy, probably due to the setting. Other bookstores have given up keeping them separate and just call it Science Fiction/Fantasy. That's pretty much my view too - Just lump em all together and read the ones you like. The Steve 06:08, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Why not call her work speculative fiction (yay, retreat to generality!). Meelar (talk) 06:10, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I believe McCaffrey herself prefers to classify her work as science fiction, because she does extensive research. (I'm sure I could dredge up a reference if you want one.) I think it makes sense to stick with what the author says, although Pern is a classic case for confusion if there ever was one. Salli 03:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is being argued again. Most of her work is fuzzy, but generally you invoke a long explanation involving chemical breakdown, your "magic" is in the form of psionics, and you have spaceships from Earth and computers, it gets accepted as science fiction. The Ship Who Sang, the Crystal Singer, the Dinosaur Planet, Doona, and the Freedom Series are all pretty classic science fiction. The Talents series has a lot more major psionics then most science fiction, but again, if you call your magic psionics, and set it in the 30th century with space ships, it's science fiction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars calls its magic the Force, is set in a futuristic setting with superluminal travel and space ships, but nobody calls it science fiction. If it has magic (which includes psionics) and space ships, it's science fantasy.2601:40D:4300:ECE0:4F8:DA27:F723:3B44 (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Split series off into separate articles

This will make it easier to refer to collaborators, and indeed refer to these series from those collaborators. If no-one objects, I'll get to it. --Phil | Talk 14:03, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by split. If you mean write longer articles about each series, sounds like a good idea. If you mean split the list of books into a list of lists of books, I don't see how that's necessary. It's not like we're adding a book an hour to this list or anything. --ssd 15:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Was this intended to break up the list of books? It seems like the article really ought to have more biographical information about Anne McCaffrey; the list takes up most of the article. –Joshua (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Three years was a long wait but recent editors agree! More biography from summer 2011, separate list of publications from fall 2011. See #Publications for more information.

There are separate articles for several series or subseries or universes in terms of the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (ISFDB). Several of them are stubs. --P64 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

The Coelura & Nimisha's Ship

These books are set in the same world, so it makes sense to list them together. Can anyone think of something to call them, other than "those books that have body heirs in them"? Is there something official I don't know about, maybe?

For lack of a useful header, I suppose one could always stick a note next to Nimisha, but it would be so much neater to do treat them like other connected books.

-Salli 01:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I havent read them lately, but I thought they were only concected very tenuously (as you say, they both have body-heirs in 'em...) I suppose the default name for this "series" containing only two stories would be The Coelura & Nimisha's Ship Iain 08:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe what it really needs is a nice asterisk. "*Set in the same universe." -Salli 01:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about The Body Heir Books? The Steve 18:10, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

According to Anne's website, the two books are members of The Coelura Series. I propose that this be the section title.*Kat* 05:33, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I second this proposal. On a side, not Anne McCaffrey's website address has changed since Kat's post. I am posting the new one in case anyone would like to confirm things for themselves.--ScifiterX 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The two books occur in the same general region, which has a name (but I can't remember it). Also, I think there are several characters that overlap, like the great grand-daughter in one is the grandmother in the other or something. --ssd 15:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of the Planet Pirates. I believe Sassinak is descended from one of the Dinosaur Planet survivors, who remained in suspended animation until they met.  The Steve  02:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

The "Planet Pirate" and "Dinosaur Planet" series are so hopelessly interconnected that it's practically useless to try to think of them as separate series (actually I think of the Dinosaur Planet books as an odd sort of interlude). The Coelura and Nimisha's Ship really have very little in common. A universe is a big place (for once). -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right about Planet Pirate and Dinosaur Planet being in the same series. However, I am fairly sure that Nimsha/Coelura besides starting in the same region of space have one overlapping character. I believe the daughter in Coelura is the mother or grandmother in Nimsha. Perhaps some day I'll go look and get the details. --ssd 04:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

Adding ISBNs

I'm slowly adding ISBNs for the books. If anyone else is currently active on this article and wants to participate, feel free -- but it would be wise to write down ISBNs in a separate file, then make one fast edit, rather than start an edit and search for ISBNs, lest our edits clash with each other. --David.alex.lamb 17:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted entry "The Girl Who Heard Dragons" from your list in the Dragon Riders of Pern section. I did this because it is a book of short stories, of which only the first (The Girl Who Heard Dragons) belongs in the Pern world. While this might qualify it, this story is also avalible in another short story collection with four Pern stories in it. A few of the stories in TGWHD are FSP stories, but most don't seem to have a connection with any of her series. It's a nice book, but it's not a Pern book. - Josh Hatcher

Someone re-added or reverted this deletion. I've taken the liberty of adding a Short Story Collections heading, moved the book (with ISBN) to that section, and also placed Get Off the Unicorn there. I marked the other "Girl Who Heard Dragons" entry as a short story. Evidently a *lot* of people who bought TGHWD book were disappointed that no other Pern stories were in it, so it seems better not to list this book under Pern. Tkech (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

People opposed to fan fiction

This article belongs to Category:People opposed to fan fiction, but this page shows that it is not true. I suggest removing the page from the category. Ifyr 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

how many??

This is an impressive list. Anyone care to state how many novels she wrote to date?--SidiLemine 11:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Word series capitalization and series name question

In my opinion, the following articles need to be renamed...

Planet Pirates Series → Planet Pirates or The Planet Pirates series

Petaybee Series → Petaybee or The Petaybee series

Catteni Series → Catteni or The Catteni series

Has Anne McCaffrey ever named "The Ship" series? I think of it as "The Brainship series". - LA @ 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Planet Pirates series etc (I feel that the other titles would be confusing to people who don't read Anne McCaffrey's books). The Brainship series is actually The Brain & Brawn Ship series, according to the official website, but the official website list is rather confused. (It lists a mixture of the UK and US editions, and even a few audio-book editions! It also has some books in the wrong order, and lists incorrectly lists some books as "non-series") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluap (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 April 2008

So there should be no problem with me renaming those sections and articles, right? - LA @ 19:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Bluap (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

Opposition to works produced by fans

The topic of Anne McCaffrey’s legal action against fans for producing works about her Pern series certainly seems like it would be relevant. While she repealed the all-out ban on producing derivative works in 2004 on her website, she still sued earlier, and, according to a cease and desist letter penned by her attorney, settled several cases for monetary compensation "in the middle and low six figures". I agree with the assertion above that she shouldn't be on the "people opposing fan fiction" category anymore, but I think that her previous opposition certainly merits mention (it only shows up in the Dragonriders of Pern article). —Joshua (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that she was personally against it. At the time, I presumed that it was for legal reasons (the same is true for many authors) Bluap (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but doesn’t the fact that she was suing people (since presumably her attorney wasn’t going around behind her back) over fan fiction, etc., merit mention? –Joshua (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against it. It was probably due to TV/movie rights issue around that time. Unless we can find reliable third-party commentary on that, we risk falling into an Original-Research trap. Bluap (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see how posting a reference to a fact (i.e., Anne McCaffrey sued people about fan works) is at all original research; also, I would expect her attorney to be a fairly reliable source. What in this do you think would constitute original research? –Joshua (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that in order to be "opposed to fan fiction" someone would have to be shouting about it in most speeches they make and most books they write. When someone has an agenda they push it. I don't think a writer needs to be characterized as being "about" this, considering the lawyers and managers and other people involved when a lawsuit happens on *behalf* of an author's work. I notice that the Category: People opposed to fan fiction has been deleted from wikipedia altogether - I think this indicates a decision not to categorize people this way. Tkech (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said she ought to be in the category “opposed to fan fiction”; I just said that I thought it might be notable that she was, at one point, opposed to it—or other people around her were opposed to it—to the point that she took legal action against fans. —Joshua (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In the introduction to Dragonsblood by her son Todd McCaffrey, Ms McCaffrey (p.x) says:

You see, I've always been paranoid about people writing in my world. If you'd seen some of the lovingly but inaccurately written stories I've seen, including a film script that had me cringing in fear that it would be produced, you'd understand how I feel about having my literary child misrepresented.

In the introduction to the book The Girl Who Heard Dragons (15 short stories published as a collection in 1994), Ms McCaffrey (p18) says:

I did have a very intense interview with a girl who insisted that there had to be religion on Pern. There was no way, in her lexicon, that the colony could have been established without religion. I told her in very certain tones and terms that Pern was my world and I could do with it what I wanted.

Perhaps these quotes give some insight into her attitude about people distorting "her" world. Gubernatoria (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, her official position was that Pern fan-fiction was all right, as long as the author didn't use her already-established Dragonriders characters or locations. Frednotbob (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Why American?

The article several times lists her nationality as American, but gives no cite nor explains it in the body of the article. As a resident for 38 years, she may or may not have Irish citizenship, may or may not have renounced her American citizenship, may or may not consider herself American, and may or may not consider herself Irish. Place of birth and citizenship at birth are not the be-all and end-all of nationality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a general problem. Editors are encouraged to put nationality in the lead sentence: eg "A.M. (born 1926) is an American author of science fiction", or Irish, or American-Irish. I think it's common to use nativity because it's almost always available without need for original research.

Of course, infoboxes might provide nativity clearly labeled, or provide nationality and/or nativity optionally.

The problem is so general that Talk pages should reference some appropriate discussion, probably in the Biography project. --P64 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

On my first or second pass through articles on particular books this fall, I removed the books from categories such as "American novels" (example from memory), without placing any in another national category. I called the author "American-Irish Anne McCaffrey" in the lead paragraph, with a footnote. Some talk pages (years ago?) question whether a book is American; I have not replied.

If the nationality of novels is important, which I hope not, then the timing of her emigration and her work during the next year clearly support calling about six of her novels American. --P64 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Themes

This whole section is unreferenced, and while I think much of it is interesting, it is also entirely Original Research. I would suggest that unless sources are found then it is deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the Talk page. Here ideas are discussed about the article. Naturally most talk on talk pages is "original" and ipso facto "unreferenced". With respect, those are not sufficient grounds for deleting comments on the Talk page. Gubernatoria (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the Themes section of the article, not the talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your suggestion with one modification. The Music section is rather relevant and is cited. It could easily be moved to Life or Work. I agree that the bulk of the Themes section sounds like original research, and in my opinion doesn't really contribute to describing her works. Tkech (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the 'citations' for the Music section are simply references to the books, i.e. primary sources and not admissible. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Age

Apparently Anne McCaffrey was born aged 83 !! That's so utterly utterly hilarious, I hope no-one has the urge to edit it out, as it will cause most visitors to chuckle out loud, as I did. (Not only was it an unbelievably corny thing to include, did the person who put it in really not work out that - even without the unintentional comedy of it - the age would have to be re-calculated and updated each year??)88.105.168.228 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That explains why I have never seen a photo of her as a young woman. --- Dagme (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To interpret it that way would be absurd, so it's reasonable to assume that our readers won't. It's clear you didn't work it out; if you check the page source, you'll note that it is automatically calculated and updated by the MetaWiki software.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding what you say, what on earth is to be gained by including the age of the author after his or her date of birth - is it assumed that readers are too stupid to work this out for themselves? When I'd got over laughing at the manifest absurdity, I felt somewhat patronised, and I don't believe that Wikipedia should aspire to such. 88.105.246.123 (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving both date of birth and current age is usual practice in scientific circles, including medical, as well as in biographical research. Gubernatoria (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Barque Cats

Why does this page not list the Barque Cats series? Is it because Ms. McCaffrey is a co-author? Macduff (talk)

It's simply because no-one has got round to updating it yet... Bluap (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

for illustration 2011-11-10

After splitting article "Anne McCaffrey", this Talk section has been copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography and it is appropriate to continue there. --P64 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

Writing period

Someone may want to correct the "Writing period" [Period] entry in the info box, which currently states "1968-Present"

The purpose may be to fit "Occupation: novelist", which is itself misleading given the great importance of magazine publication at least through the 1960s. She became a full-time writer about 1965. For now I will change merely to "1967-Present", the publication date of her first novel. --P64 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The short story "The Ship Who Sang" was published in 1961, this information is even listed within this article.

Sorry about not updating this myself Kid Bugs (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Dragonholder by Todd McCarthy, she wrote her first published story "Freedom of Race" while pregnant with her first child; separately it indicates that must have been 1952.

What should define timespans that describe careers? Probably not the dates of first and last known efforts in the field but something related to one's most important work (why Notable at wikipedia) or full-time occupation.

--P64 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Like Nationality (above, Why American?), these infobox fields is problematic. There may be a general guideline for use of this Infobox, perhaps by WikiProject Biography (above, banner). Ideally, Talk pages should reference appropriate discussion.

Flourished —maybe a useful article. --P64 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I have changed Occupation novelist => writer and Period 1968 => 1965, when she became a full-time writer. See the article. --P64 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Children's literature

The article should give some attention to classification of McCaffrey as an author of "children's" or "juvenile" fiction. Probably by someone from the Children's literature project. --P64 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

At my local public library the Dragonriders of Pern series is mainly in the science fiction collection, partly in children's collection. Some Pern books are in science fiction, young adult, and children's classes across the different libraries in the regional network, which share a catalog. The Acorna series is mainly in science fiction, partly in fantasy. Meanwhile many of McCaffrey's stories are recommended specifically for girls or women. --P64 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The SFHOF citation of McCaffrey notes her "reputation as a writer of romantic, tales of adventure, explicitly designed to appeal to—and resonate with— a predominantly female adolescent audience." And "There are many more novels set in Pern, notably Dragonsong (1976), Dragonsinger (1977), and Dragondrums (1979), which are juveniles."

The footer note "Courtesy of the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction ..." clearly acknowledges a debt but does not assure me that the whole is a quotation from The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.

--P64 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

This week, already begun, I intend to rewrite the biography by reference to Dragonholder by Todd McCaffrey. Maybe using no other references, maybe ending before the Books section.

That should be enough to get Anne a "C" from some of these WikiProjects. --P64 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In retrospect, I should have worked on this in User space. I'll try to remember to move it there 20 hours from now, if it isn't readable. --P64 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done-07-18:

• export rough draft and notes to my User space
• replace devices such as ## # and [{fact}] in the text with References content such as  ?, ..., —.

This keeps the biography readable during work in progress. These are temporary moves to undo later this week. --P64 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Publications

The List of Books or publications incorporated in this article was questioned already seven years ago, Talk:Anne McCaffrey/Archive 1#Split series off into separate articles. The list is now much longer, very long indeed. There is much duplication with two other pages.

• Dragonriders of Pern#Publications by the McCaffreys follows publication order approximately, with incomplete information on short stories later collected in books. Of course it's limited to Pern and it includes Todd McCaffrey.
• List of Pern books follows Pern historical order and includes short stories

Another approach may be commendable.

• Piers Anthony includes no list of publications
• Piers Anthony bibliography
• Xanth#Books lists the Xanth books in publication order

--P64 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the page is undoubtably long it is a useful reference without need to click on to other pages. I believe that the list should usefully stay on the author's page keeping the duplication to a minimum. For example the page lists PERN books in publication order but links out to a list in PERN historical order. Given the nature of these books it is useful to view them in these different ways which might be confusing on a single page.

--80.229.155.98 26th July 2011

For our reference: Category:Bibliographies by subject, eg fantasy, science fiction. --P64 (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The publications listed here may/might(*) differ from those at main articles on Anne McCaffrey series by including only "Books", where the main articles also list short fiction (and maybe more?). For example, see Dragonriders of Pern, The Ship Who Sang, To Ride Pegasus. The two latter cover the story, the book, and the series/universe. (Although "To Ride Pegasus" is never used to name the Talents series/universe, I have now linked it here as a "main article", based on its content and the lack of any other candidate. Perhaps Crystal Singer should provide similar coverage of the Crystal Singer universe. It doesn't, yet.)

(*) I mean both that we might limit this list to Books as a matter of policy; and that this list may now when you read this cover only Books, depending on whether short fiction has recently been cut or restored.--P64 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we really need to split the list of books into a separate List of works by Anne McCaffrey or whatever. This will be one of the first comments that would cause the article to fail a Good Article review. We can retain the current section here for Books with subsections for Classification and each series, with leadouts to the various main articles and lists. We can then concentrate on adding quality text to those sections, while also maintaining a high quality list (requirements for articles and lists are different: articles are mostly supposed to avoid list format for example). --Mirokado (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I take this to be the "may be commendable" approach that has been implemented for Piers Anthony (described at the top of this section) because a "bibliography" such as Piers Anthony bibliography is such a List of works —and in the technical sense of WP:LIST. Right? --P64 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example. We could follow the Anthony precedent with the name Anne McCaffrey bibliography too. --Mirokado (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No objections to this, so I have done it, following P64's suggestion for the new list name, Anne McCaffrey bibliography (IP80 above did not want just one list but we have still have several organised in various ways and have not merged anything else in splitting this so no reduction of list possibilities). I have retained classification and overall plot summaries in this article thus keeping the list to the list of books with introductions of publishing history. Undoubtedly we will need to see how this looks and do some fine tuning, maybe update add more links to the new list from other articles. We should concentrate on keeping flowing prose in this article and the list stuff in lists as much as possible. --Mirokado (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

Federated Sentient Planets universe

User:Knytshall has added this to the preface of subsection Books:Doona (no direct link is possible, afaik).

(quote) The books are set in the time of "Amalgamated Worlds" but a sentence in chapter ten of Crisis at Doona hints that there is "a desire to form a Federation of Sentient Planets". This sets the books just prior to the FSP universe of much of the author's work.

Decision at Doona (1969) is clearly set after an important event in human history, "Amalgamation". There are multiple allusions to that Terran(?) solution to interracial conflict, iiuc. Perhaps this supports K's point.

I have wondered what to do about the so-called FSP universe. For one, the ISF DataBase uses "universe" for some more narrowly defined series, and we do so here now with the "Crystal Singer universe" subsection heading. Second, to me this observation by Knytshall places the Doona series in the FSP universe, which means all fiction whose setting is linked to the FSP: set before, outside, or after the FSP. Do others agree?

Anyway, FSP universe covers a lot and isn't very important. ISFDB doesn't recognize any FSP mega-group within McCaffrey's fiction. I doubt that it should be a section of the list of books. If it's more important than I think, it should probably have a "main article".--P64 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The link to the FSP universe in "Crisis on Doona" jumped out at me when re-reading the novel over the weekend. It seems clear that A.M. thought about a united universe which she thought of as "the FSP" and used it as a "loose" background to her novels. It is not clear however who put this single short reference in chapter ten of C o D since the novel is co- authored by Jody Lynn Nye. C o D talks about Amalgamated Worlds, including the reference to a desire to form FSP, but it is only a side plot line to help develop the story. In the Dragon books FSP gets a passing mention in stories where it is relevant - how did Pern get named and how did it start. It is a back story to explain the setting for novels and perhaps to explan why there are no visitors to help with more advanced technology. The novels stand on their own with or without FSP. If there were a novel that specifically talked about FSP then there might need to be an article about it but as a general plot backgound (to several novels/series) it is interesting (especially to knowledgable fans) but of limited significance.--Knytshall 20:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, K. Regarding the "other series", which section Anne McCaffrey#Books does not currently place in the FSP universe, do we have knowledgeable readers to confirm that each does not belong, or to correct that? These are the "others" at the moment.

3.2 The Talents universe (I have read To Ride Pegasus, would need to review it)
3.3 Doona, corrected by Knytshall (I agree)
3.4 Petaybee universe
3.5 The Freedom series
3.6 The Barque Cat Series
3.7 Acorna universe

(I have read only the two early books To Ride Pegasus and Decision at Doona.)

I have not read McCaffrey's first novel Restoree. Last month I moved it to the top of section Books for the double reason that it was her first and it is the only one of her "novels" that has not become part of a series, as catalogued by ISFDB. She has explained to a fan why it is a "stand-alone", which I have added to the article ("McCaffrey became a full-time writer ...").

P.S. See how ISFDB groups the McCaffrey fiction: Anne McCaffrey at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database

--P64 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The talents universe uses telekinesis which does not appear to be mentioned in the novels identified as in the FSP universe. The only ESP evident IIRC in the FSP universe is telepathy and teleportation in the Dragon books but that is led by and to/from the dragons/firelizards not between humans. To me that would imply that the talents universe is separate from the FSP universe. If there is a link it is tenous.

(interjection) Telekinesis enters Dragonriders and thus the FSP universe in The Skies of Pern, the last novel written by AIM alone and the last in Pern historical order. This does not affect your general point. Thanks. --P64 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Freedom series uses an Earth/Terra with an initial population and a technology level commensurate with late 20th early 21st century. This is a lot less than the level in the Doona books so if in the same universe Doona is much later. However the range of intelligent species in the Freedom Series is not consistent with that in the Doona setting and in particular with the xenophbia shown by some in that setting. Add to that the space flight in the Freedom series uses ships "acquired" from other species/races and there is considerable doubt that the universe described would develop into the Doona setting and then the FSP. With ships, and planets for colonisation, available would the population level on Earth ever reach Doona levels? Technology on Doona seems to be human developed, it could have had a boost from contact with other species as in the Freedom series but this seems unlikely. On balance I would vote for the Freedom universe being separate from both the FSP and Talents universes.

I have not read the Petaybee or Barque Cat series. Acorna at a quick look does not appear to mention a government system that is wider than planetary, I have read some of the series but it is not one I would intend to re-read in the near future.--Knytshall 07:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User ScifiterX has moved the Barque Cat Series into the Talents universe as the cats are mentioned in the talents series. I have not read the Barque cats books and do not rememeber them in the Talents books I have read but this move would seem to make sense in the same way as Doona moving into the FSP group.--Knytshall 10:30, 07 October 2011 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Anne McCaffrey bibliography. Please continue discussion there. -P64

Original research in references

I have removed two refs from the list item Dragonrider. Inline refs are supposed to support the content. These two are not needed for that. They provide extra, background information which should either be in the article or a note if included at all. The second reference with "... seems ... seems ..." is clearly original research and needs to be rewritten to say what the sources say not what an editor thinks. There could be a note or para somewhere discussing the evolution of the collaboration between Anne and Todd, for example. Here are the two removed refs.

--Mirokado (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

P64: I agree that the second "seems" implies original research, but regarding authenticity is unclear that the retailer's product listing is derived from the publisher or publisher's representative? Such references (Dragon's School listing at Amazon.com) are routine here.

Similarly routine would be reference to either her son or her biographer for the claim that The White Dragon was the first NYTBS science fiction by a female author.

In both instances, the multiple references (try to) document the disagreement among sources that would stand alone.

In the one case, we/I may be able to note that the son and biographer have overlooked Frank Herbert, by referencing both the NYTBS for Dune and that novel's science fiction classification. I understand that this should be in a Note rather than a Reference.

In the other case, the multiple references evidently support the listing "Dragonrider or Dragon's School (forthcoming 2012)", rather than the unequivocal listing. --P64 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Book titles: I suggest that, if you wish, you collect references about the evolution of these titles and text for a section about this and the Anne/Todd collaboration in a sandbox page. All the to-and-fro information is currently too unstable and confusing to go into the article. Once things have settled down perhaps it can be a section of its own, depending on how much light it sheds on the creation process (changes in book title and publication plans are I imagine fairly routine and not necessarily noteworthy). The article can state the current situation if that is clear or just list the proposed titles and say something like "publication details have not yet been finalised". At times I imagine not even the authors have known how the books will eventually appear and I doubt whether a lot of what has been said has really been "authoritative".

Dune etc: a note with sources for the conflicting information is a possibility, I agree. It would be better to present the information and let the reader draw conclusions rather than try to present a conclusion ourselves, which would be synthesis. --Mirokado (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

P64: Some material that I have written into this article is notable in articles on particular books but not in the biography.

The New York Times Best Seller list may provide examples of that, as sales performance of many kinds may be notable for a particular book. In the main instance, I followed Todd McCaffrey in naming her the first SF author. Only by accident —simply because AIM and Frank Herbert were inducted by the SFHOF in the same annual class, and I searched the web for the event— I later learned that Herbert's Dune preceded The White Dragon on NYTBS list. Maybe the point is no longer notable here —or not worth pursuing here. The text might say "one of the first SF authors" with referenced note that her "biographers" call her first but Herbert was earlier, end of story.

Book titles clearly provide an example of material likely to be notable in a book's entry but not in its author's (biography). In her biography what's notable is that she is still active and reports progress as a solo author, which she called unlikely in 2008 iirc. (I have suggested that a complete list of books may not belong here. The title of the next Pern book is notable in that book's entry, when the book appears, and maybe in Dragonriders of Pern now, but not in her biography (perhaps Todd's, not Anne's). --P64 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed

I have added Citation needed to the statement "Confirmed 2011-10-09" in a Dragonrider ref. There is no reference dated 2011-10-09 so this new confirmation of the proposed titles is unsourced. Since while trying to find this confirmation I checked the citation already in that reference I added the missing |accessdate= to it. Having done that I realise that editors may be putting Confirmed outside the citation definitions instead of using |accessdate. Please use the |accessdate parameter properly if using Cite * templates. I will wait a while for active editors to tidy the accessdates up as necessary. In the absence of such action or a response here I will tidy the article up myself. --Mirokado (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

P64: What do you mean that a confirmation is unsourced? Yesterday I copied the template citation here from elsewhere and confirmed that the URL still works (without checking for a date inside the template). Do you think there should never be two dates given? Should every editor who visits a given online reference revise the date, testifying that the URL works on the more later date?)

By the way, when a reference includes bibliographic data and some text (substantial or navigational) —even both for more than one source— how should they be sequenced?

Is there a way to put freeform navigational instructions inside a template? That would separate them from substantial text, mimicking print references for print sources which put Page 9, Chap 6, or Fig 3 in the bibliographic data. -P64 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In the context of "the titles and their sequence are uncertain" it looked as if "Confirmed..." was implying "The author has now confirmed this by providing new information on 2011-10-09" but there was no reference to the source of the new information. I spent some time trying to find it! The confusion was greater since the first citation is defined in a cite template and the "Confirmed..." is extra text in the reference outside the template.

The cite templates have several parameters dealing with dates:

• |date= for the date of publication, which we should provide if it is available
• |accessdate= the date the information used to create the citation was extracted from the reference. If I just check that a url is still valid I don't update the accessdate. If I need to update or correct a citation (adding the author for example) then I normally do update the accessdate. If I have updated or expanded the article content which relies on that citation (not just typos etc) then I also update the accessdate if I remember, so it is clear that I really did refer to it! See Wikipedia:CITEHOW, in particular Wikipedia:CITEHOW#Web_pages
• There is also |archivedate for citations with an archive of the original
• There is no provision for a separate confirmation that a url was still alive on a particular date. This is not necessary
• For this article, I would like us to end up with |accessdate= replacing the associated dates outside the citation templates, using whichever of the replaced dates best corresponds to the latest change to the information used if there are two

I suggest normally putting each extra citation (bibliographic data) at the beginning of a new line so that they are all in a consistent position within the listing. You can use a bulleted list within a reference, for example (see (currently) Rambhadracharya#cite_note-programmes-23 ref) or ...<br />• ... which is arguably a bit tidier (see (currently) Gaza flotilla raid#cite_note-79 ref). Extra information should follow the citation it relates to for the same reason, just as the quotation in the |quote= parameter does. I often use the |postscript=. Another sentence. parameter so the additional details are within the related citation definition.

The {{Sfn}} template and friends generate a Bloggs 1897, p. 42 ref which links to the corresponding citation. If you look at Wheelchair trainer you will see that I am having fun linking references and citations in various ways (still not finished) ...

Having said all that, it is probably better not to be too "clever" as an unconventional format is likely to confuse a reader used to other articles.

I'm looking forward to working with you and others to help improve this article. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

P64: Thanks. The linked example reference in Gaza flotilla raid is tidier than the other format. ("Gaza" currently mixes the two. Follow the link Gaza flotilla raid#cite_note-143, which I am able to write only by trial and error.)

Mk: Yes. Unfortunately though the possibilities involve compromises. The example we agree is tidier retains the format of the first para for subsequent paras, but the '•' is smaller than the '^' introducing the whole reference. The bulleted list leaves an ugly blank line after the '^' unless we have some introductory text, the bullets are visually stronger than the '^' and offset by a pixel or so, perhaps depending on browser or screen resolution. The bulleted list is, however, better for users of screen readers (visually impaired for example) and uses only standard wikitext. In the Gaza article, the bulleted lists have the introductory text, the others don't, I decided to wait for a better solution for both, and it may be that nobody else is worried! That decision was partly because the bulleted refs were added by another editor and with articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict we need to be extra careful about reverting changes other editors have made.

I cheated to find the ref links. Go to the citation you are interested in, click the '^' or '^a' to jump to an inline ref, then click on the ^[ref] to go back to the citation. Then you can find the necessary text for the link in the browser url field (everything after /wiki/).

  The special character '•' is new to me. Recently I have used a non-breaking space for the same purpose, as in this paragraph. --P64 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mk: If you are using the Vector (default) skin, you can find '•' in the Symbols list which you can select from the popup between "Save page" and "Please note". The nbsp works quite well too. --Mirokado (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions etc in the article

I now notice several places where questions etc which belong on the talk page have been placed in the article, notes or references. I will remove these and add them below. The article can only contain properly sourced material, not ongoing discussions between editors. --Mirokado (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Lead: The only external link in this note does not mention Hans van der Boom, so this assertion is unsourced. References for the other points made are missing. The text ends with talk page material. I have replaced it by citation needed for now in the article. I have also removed the second use from the Classification section as it would not be needed to support the information there, assuming the other references are in fact adequate (I don't understand what they refer to yet). --Mirokado (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Section Classification: I have replace this with citation needed. --Mirokado (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Section Pern forever: I suggest we let the reader decide the context of this. The article text should be as clear as the reference and say what that says. Currently there is no reference for the statement so I have added citation needed. --Mirokado (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Section Books: No idea what this means, it is certainly not a ref supporting the content. Removed. A good ref supporting the relationship with Betty would be welcome here if there is one. --Mirokado (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course the material can be moved back to the article once it is properly written and sourced. --Mirokado (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

P64: Probably I can do most or all of this but it's unlikely for two weeks.

When I do, I'll print the mid-20111009 version of the Notes and References sections. --P64 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Mirokado (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Library catalogs as sources

Library catalogs are reliable sources for their own classifications (and for others such as Dewey or LOC numbers). Their classifications of particular books as Children's, as Science Fiction, etc, could be used to support that libraries disagree. As I understand it, the text probably, or perhaps a note, but not a reference, would state that libraries disagree. References to catalogs would support a statement in the text. A note would need to include its own source data because <ref> cannot be nested. --P64 (talk) 10:12 pm, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked wiki coding and sig above for clarity. Generally that sounds reasonable, if necessary, but the article already makes it clear that her work lives a bit in the various genres, with suitable references. With some care it can be possible to have refs in a note, we could work out something suitable if a note is needed. --Mirokado (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this section is a followup to this, a comment in the article which I have just removed (indentation added). Please don't add such notes to the article as comments, few editors will notice them but they clutter the source up. The comment does raise interesting points though:

CLASSIFICATION. a matter of disagreement among publishers or booksellers or libraries. also critics and fans!

Editors? It does seem that her connections were many and her relations were good, quickly. Of course there were female editors.

Which are for female readers? Is she a women's author?

McCaffrey's recent opinion, espy re Dragonriders, but contrary recollections of the 1950s/60s.

Which of her works are for children? or young adults?

Local public libraries differ

YA lifetime achievement award

Science fiction? or fantasy?

Local public libraries differ.

Educationists?

several lifetime achievement awards

Locus #9 alltime fantasy novel

--Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a warning, not all catalogs are good sources, I find plenty of errors (misspellings, dates etc) in bibliotektjänst´s catalog entries. They correct most after a few requests, but some irritating errors remain. Example: Cataloging "Rudolf Diesel : hans liv och verk /Eugen Diesel!" as tecnology. There are at most 50 pages of tecnology in it, about 100 pages of economy and a few hundred biography (Rudolf and family) (by his son). Seniorsag (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Classification section

I have moved this to be a subsection of books. It was given undue weight as the first section after the lead. The article should have information about McCaffrey and her career first, details of the books later in the books section.

I also created a subsection for Restoree, as this book was a getting a bit lost as the only one without a subsection. --Mirokado (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the Locus list.

interjections by P64 ... (I had referred to Pringle's reproduction of this list among others.) I have clarified and linked to Locus (magazine).

Looking at the Pringle ref:

<ref>''Modern Fantasy'', 20. ''Science Fiction'', 17. Pringle does not rank any of McCaffrey's works among the "hundred best" recent English-language science fiction novels or fantasy novels. He concedes a blind spot regarding planetary romance. David Pringle, ''[[Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels]], An English-language selection, 1949–1984'', London: Xanadu Publ, 1985. David Pringle, ''[[Modern Fantasy: The 100 Best Novels]], An English-language selection, 1946–1987'', London: Grafton Books, 1988.</ref>

am I correct in interpreting "20" and "17" as page numbers in the Fantasy and Fiction books of the respective quotes in the article text?

... I believe that I is my reliable practice. (This might make a good illustration of my discomfort regarding the sequence of elements in our references but I would need to revisit the sources to give the illustration pedagogic value.)

[...] If so I can recast this so it would be (I hope) a bit clearer. Can you provide the book and page number for his "conceding a blind spot"? --Mirokado (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

... Certainly I can but Pringle's two books and Dragonholder by Todd McCaffrey are three that I checked out of a local public library system, not all in the local local collection.

Rereading our articles on Pringle's books, I am only 95% sure of Science Fiction, page 17. --P64 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Understanding your intention I can transform without altering the information. --Mirokado (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference updates

I have updated the reference dealing with Pringle's lists, as discussed above. In order to do that I have found it necessary to change the style and implementation of some references and citations. Wikipedia guidelines make it clear that such changes should only be made with consensus. I hope other editors will agree that these changes are an improvement. I have made more-or-less-minimal changes to support the updated content and in the absence of objections I will make the corresponding changes elsewhere so the article is consistent:

• inline refs for each quote from Pringle, thus:
• a citation for each book for which an inline reference will normally have page numbers
  • citations after the references following common practice
• use the Harvard link system to connect inline references and their citations
• to do that simply, a change of presentation from "Title pages." to "Author year, p. pages." The benefit of using this common format will become more apparent as we need more references from different books, inevitable as the article is improved: the {{Sfn}} template is a convenient and compact way of generating these references
• more-or-less consistent with the above, still use the title for Dragonholder as this is nicely recognisable in the reference list: a different implementation links the first couple of inline links to the citation, it does not seem necessary to link every single Dragonholder reference
• use the Cite book template for the linked citations to support the Harvard links conveniently: this is another change of implementation and style (date after author instead of later): at the same time I have used first-name, last-name for the authors which will make the list easier to sort and read in conventional alphabetical order of author

If other editors agree to these changes, I will:

• update remaining Dragonholder (and any other similar) citations to use "p. page" instead of just "page" etc.
• update remaining Further reading citations to the same format as the References citations: this will make the article look nice and it will be easy to move further reading items to the references as I expect we will need to do
• perhaps other common-sense changes for consistency

If I have to change anything for other reasons in the next few days, I will also modify as described here, but I can make further changes as necessary depending on any responses to this post. --Mirokado (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

P64: I heartily approve systematic overhaul of references format, both for consistency and for demonstration of some methods that are new to me (the field postcript=; the template {Refn}; the repeat use of "Citations" listed within section References; etc).

Afterward I will overhaul Todd McCaffrey references in the same way (where I started, and as here I am the author of them all) —for practice, at least. ... and same for the two "articles" List of Pern books and Dragonriders of Pern, where again I am almost sole author of the references, although not so much author of the articles.

I expect to adopt some practices that I see here, at least in articles that have many references. --P64 (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and support for the suggested changes. I will continue to update the article over the next few days. --Mirokado (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the notes to use group lower-alpha: I think^[a] etc look a bit nicer than^{[NB 1]} etc. I hope that is OK... --Mirokado (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Mirokado

Thanks to User:Mirokado for much thoughtful attention to the article and careful comment here this week. Cascading indentation is not adequate to distinguish respondents, when there is much use of block quotation, bulleted or numbered lists, etc. —at least, I find that confusing. Rather than indent more deeply, I have gone back to all my replies (some new this hour) and inserted the bold prefix P64:. This will be useful and perhaps adequate if the current pattern continues (long formatted contributions by M, some replies by me, and nothing yet from anyone else).

Feel free to delete this section if this is a bad idea or a better one is easy to implement. --P64 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Your reply style is perfectly clear and you have not changed anything I said when interleaving a response, so that is OK in this case. --Mirokado (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledgments and Dedications

(I apologize for belated notice.) On visits to some public library branches I have compiled notes on the Dedications and Acknowledgments in many of the Pern books and some others.

User:P64/FSF#Dedications, Acknowledgments, etc

• For example, Jack Cohen: dedication All the Weyrs of Pern; special acknowledgements Dragonsdawn and the Tower & Hive series.
• For example, Steve Beard: dedication The Skies of Pern; special acknowledgments Pegasus in Space and The Skies of Pern.

This month I have worked a lot on articles related to this biography. I will begin to get back to AIM herself this weekend, after the world championships conclude. --P64 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! --Mirokado (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Home of her own design

(quoting the lead paragraph) For more than thirty years she has lived in a home of her own design, "Dragonhold–Underhill" in County Wicklow, near Dublin.

User:EmpathicCelt has just now restored there some wording from the capsule biography that appears in some AIM books (endpapers, dust jacket, or back cover?). If we do use this wording it needs to be credited. For the record, beside possible undue emphasis in the lead paragraph, I had doubts about this because it doesn't fit the Dragonholder account of their/her house purchase in 1976 or so, and subsequent move into Dragonhold. On the web I have seen some remarks about her current home, and some photos, which also do not fit the Dragonholder account. The truth may be more than one home called Dragonhold; thirty years in County Wicklow; some shorter time in the famous "home of her own design". --P64 (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

She had a house called "Dragonhold" from 1976, opened stables nearby and designed the new house, started in 1990, next to the stables. That is built into a hillside so she called it "Dragonhold-Underhill". Thus twenty rather than thirty years and you are right, that is too much detail for the lead and also probably too much detail for a BLP. I will rephrase the sentence and add references to Roberts 2007 and Trachtenberg. We can see how that looks. --Mirokado (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Date formats

The article has had {{use dmy dates}} since some time in July. Currently article with infobox has a mixture of dmy (International) and mdy (American) with the references using at least predominantly iso format. MOS:DATE says that the dates used in the article and for publication dates in references should be consistent and either dmy or mdy. Access dates and archive dates in references should either be consistent with the article or in iso format. I will make the article MOS conformant: the international format is what is already specified by use dmy dates and seems reasonable for an author translated into many languages resident in Ireland. For this make-it-consistent exercise I would also make all the access and archive dates iso format. At the same time I will tidy up any remaining usages of "confirmed" or similar in references, standardising on "Retrieved (date)". Any comments before I do this? --Mirokado (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! Bluap (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Most done, a few more to do after I have watched NCIS :) --Mirokado (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Death Date

This information is reliable, Sharon Lee is an author who was friends with Ms. McCaffrey. One of us can update the link when there is an official obituary.Zola (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Updated link to Random House now that they have confirmed her death on their blogZola (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by Tor Books at http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/11/anne-mccaffrey-in-remembrance . Dicrostonyx (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image

The image used on this article is still pretty awful (as users were commenting higher up on this talk page back in 2006). I understand why it was used if it was the only free image we had, but it seems to me to do a disservice to its subject. Now that she's dead, and a better free image couldn't be obtained, would it be permissible to replace it with a better, non-free image? Or have I misunderstood how our image policy works? Robofish (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia had another one that was better and CC licensed, so I put it in. Be bold in editing, right? Oh wait... that's TVtropes. I think Wikipedia usually espouses timidity. Oh well, 'tis done. -Fuzzy (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold is good. However, none of the photos on Commons is entirely satisfactory. We need more photos to choose from. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the timidity comes from our hands being smacked away whenever we try to edit/add something. One person thinks they mean well by an edit/addition, then the next person comes along and erases it for some inane reason. Wiki has become its own "public domain!" — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about the causes of timidity. However, editors who mistake a revert for violence against their person won't stay long in any case. Best regards, —Stepheng3 (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a new picture. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anne_McAffrey_Ruhsam.jpg There really is a dearth of good photos of her that are licensed properly. Anyway, I'm not married to it—change it back if you like. Braincricket (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, looks like it's going to be speedily deleted anyway. Braincricket (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

DuPont

Early in the article, the words "DuPont transferred the family temporarily to Düsseldorf, Germany" appear with no context or previous mention of the name "DuPont". There is no previous indication of who or what DuPont is. Please fix this. --- Dagme (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done – I don't know when or how but it has gone: the only mention of DuPont now remaining is a book ref ... maybe it had escaped from there? Anyway, it's gone, so: fine. DBaK (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Anne McAffrey Ruhsam.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anne McAffrey Ruhsam.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done ... it has gone, nothing to see here. DBaK (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple article deletion request

Some of the articles providing background information for the Dragonriders of Pern series arewere the subject of a multiple deletion request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holds of Pern. Dragonriders of Pern iswas a candidate destination for any resulting merged content. --Mirokado (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Pern#Merging etc which I hope will document actions taken in response to the comments at the AfD. --Mirokado (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)