Talk:Ann Bannon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

More biographical information needed

Since Ann Bannon is a living person, and has maintained a public persona separate from her private one up until 2 years ago, information about her life is difficult to find. She provides most of that information herself in interviews and her book forwards. In order to improve the article, more than Bannon is needed at a source.

So if you can improve any of the following areas (with sources), that would be helpful:

  • Ann's early childhood - what her parents did, where she grew up.
  • I believe Ann attended the University of Illinois, and I surmise this only because she attends their homecoming. However, since she wrote Odd Girl Out about college experience, any information about her college experiences would be very useful - specifically 3rd party observations. Her sorority experience would be extremely useful.
  • Third party observations of Bannon's experiences in Greenwich Village while she was "researching". Her experiences hanging out with Marijane Meaker and/or Sandra Scoppetone.
  • Her marriage is a sensitive subject. I'm sure she would like to keep her ex-husband anonymous (as would he), but any 3rd party reflection on that would be necessary for a thoroughly objective article.
  • Any statistics about sales numbers.
  • Any quotes or articles focusing on the books or characters by renowned historians or writers.Bannon's books are incuded in many student theses, but I feel like it would give it a more legitimate air to quote more published sources.
  • Evidence of the books and/or characters' impact on lesbians. How this may be obtained I do not know."Forbidden Love" or "Before Stonewall" may have direct quotes. I'm embarrassed to say I have to rent them...(putting them on my list now)...
  • A photograph of her that is public domain.

I'm going to do my best to work on this. I'd appreciate anything anyone else can do too. Moni3 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Images

Could you please upload the images to Commons? :-) The Spanish Wikipedia (to which I'm translating this superb article) only uses Commons images. Cheers and thanks in advance! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I...don't know how to do that. Never done it before. Let me try to figure it out today. --Moni3 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Okeydoke, Raystorm. I did two of them. I can do the third photo of Bannon at the bottom, or wait until you translate that far down. Thank you, by the way, for the translation. This is a huge long article (for me, at least). Bannon's website, by the way, has some of her covers in different languages. I've seen Italian, Dutch and Spanish there. You might be able to upload the Spanish book covers to her article in Spanish. Well done! --Moni3 00:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Thank YOU Moni! :-D I did not see this message before replying on your talk, but yeah, go ahead and do the third photo so I won't have to bother you again in a week or so. ;-P And true, it *is* a huge article! ;-D It's gonna take me awhile to translate it. I'm afraid I won't be able to get the images of the book covers because they will be Fair Use, and the Spanish wiki only uses Commons images. Pity. But I'll see if I can find some info about the impact and legacy her books had in Europe, and if I do find something, I'll be sure to let you know. ;-) Cheers and thanks again, what you did will benefit many other wikis, you can be sure of that! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 18, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article does a good job of complying with the Manual of Style for the most part, and is a pleasure to read. Some small work needs doing however. The end bits of Criticism and recognition need to be consolidated in to proper paragraphs rather than a series of single sentences.
Done.--Moni3 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
2. Factually accurate?: The bare minimum of inline citations are the end of each paragraph and for quotations. The article generally does an admirable job of providing this, but I have tagged one quotation as needing a direct cite. The Current life section lacks any citations whatsoever at this point. Another issue is the information provided (or that hassn't, rather) in some of the refs. For a web reference, a url with a title is not sufficient. Using citation templates are not required in any circumstance, but refs 1, 33, 35, 38, 49, and 54-57 must have additional information (in some cases, their actual source, and things such as access dates and such). Without knowing what the actual source of something is, and possibly who is responsible for writing it, there is no way for the reader to judge the reliability of a source. This especially true for ref 33, a news source apparently. One last thing in terms of accuracy. I may have missed a cited mention elsewhere, but the influences and influenced lists in the infobox need a citation (especially when claiming the influences on a living writer).
Quotation marked cited. --Moni3 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Current life section cited. --Moni3 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Fixed inline citations to reflect full bibliography entries. --Moni3 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
If the article's content and citations aren't enough references for the infobox, am I am able to reference within an infobox? I'm happy to do that, I just have never seen it. Please advise. --Moni3 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
3. Broad in coverage?: Comprehensive and concise.
4. Neutral point of view?: All significant views present and given fair treatment. I see no violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy present.
5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.
6. Images?: Account for with proper licenses where present.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky Talk 23:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes and comments

For ease of reading, please place any comments on the review and the completion of any improvements below. Thanks a million! VanTucky Talk

Oops. All points for hold taken care of except for citations for influences and influenced. Question above as to where that occurs. The article cites them within itself, but I have never seen citations in an infobox. Thanks. --Moni3 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
For artists, an infobox ref for influences is actually quite common. The normal ref format should work fine. If there is a further textual discussion of her influences in the article, normally I think that would be enough if those names are mentioned there and it is cited. But remember that this a BLP article, anything possibly contentious should have an inline ref. VanTucky Talk 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They are cited within the article, but I added them to the infobox as well. --Moni3 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Just checking to make sure nothing else has to be done for this review. --Moni3 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Nothing else to do, I just wanted to wait a little bit to look it over with a morning-fresh pair of eyes to catch anything that I may have missed before. But it's definitely passed now. Thanks very much for all your hard work, and especially your swift response to the hold. You should be proud! VanTucky Talk 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This was the first article I created. I would have been proud of it even if it didn't pass. I don't know if I'm allowed to change the status to GA, but I'm doing it and I know someone will correct me if I do something I shouldn't... Thank you for your help, VanTucky, --Moni3 13:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Awadewit's comments on "Themes" and "Style" sections

Finally I have time to delve in these sections! If I'm being too picky, let me know.

  • Since so little information was available about lesbians and lesbianism at the time, Bannon's books, through their far-reaching distribution and popularity served to form a part of a lesbian identity. - I'm wondering if "information" is really the right word here. Is information what allows people to form a lesbian identity? Hm. What about "representations" or something like that? I thought the theory was that the more lesbians are represented in culture, the more people feel comfortable articulating a lesbian identity.
  • Bannon's depictions of lesbians served not only the heterosexual population at large, but lesbians themselves. - I'm not sure that "served" is the best word for a general readership.
  • Loewenstein remarks that readers in 1980 had a tendency to reject that kind of reality in Bannon's stories - Was it reality or a fictional portrayal of reality?
  • Bannon addressed the criticisms of her characters as self-destructive in limiting roles, in the new forewords to the Cleis Press editions, explaining that she simply depicted what she knew and felt at the time - Awkward wording at the beginning of the sentence
  • I'm wondering how easy it is to separate "Identity" from "Gender". They seem part of the same thread in the novels. Would "Lesbian identity" be a better way to focus the first section?
  • Andrea Loewenstein notes Bannon's use of cliché, suggesting that it reflected Bannon's own belief in the culturally repressive ideas of the 1950s - How did Bannon use cliche to suggest repression? This is not exactly explained to the reader.
  • Barale writes that Bannon manipulates male readers to become interested in the story, then turns them into voyeurs and imposes homosexual desires upon them, though eventually places them in a safe position to understand a gay story from a heterosexual point of view - awkward phrasing
  • The erotic nature of the books has been noted. - Weak transition
  • Loewenstein remarks on the intensity of Laura's passion: "The presentation of a woman as a joyfully aggressive person is, in itself, a rare achievement in 1957" - Quote doesn't seem to support either claim of eroticism or intensity of Laura's passion.
  • While a 2002 retrospective of Bannon's books claims "there were more explicit and nuanced representations of sexuality in those paperbacks than could be found almost anywhere else". - sentence fragment
  • The last paragraph of "Style" seems like it belongs in the "Legacy" section.
  • There are lots of quotations in these sections. You might try reducing the number by paraphrasing more of them.
  • There is a little bit of repetition between the book descriptions and the "Themes" and "Style" sections now. Have you thought about trying to integrate these various sections? (Gasp, horror, I know.)

I think these are excellent additions to the article. Not many editors would take the time to add to an article that was already featured. You are one of those rare gems. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, articles are never finished. That can be good, or cause for insanity. Today, I'll consider it good. I very much appreciate your attention and remarks. I'll work on these issues over the next few days. One question I had: I use a lot of quotations because these sections basically interpret the books for the reader. I want to make sure that it's the scholars' words making those statements, not I. Is this more of a style issue from one editor to the next? --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but paragraphs full of quotations are actually hard to read. It is easier to read and to understand the concepts (which in these sections are actually pretty advanced) if the article is written in one style with the choice quotation here or there, if you see what I mean. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll give it a shot and take on the responsibility of paraphrasing their words. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Five or six novels?

In the first sentence it states that she wrote six novels. Yet only five are listed under The Beebo Brinker Chronicles. What was the sixth novel? HairyWombat (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Marriage is included in the section describing Journey to a Woman. It was the one that was not reprinted as it only tangentially dealt with homosexuality. Still quite an interesting read, though. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I find it strange that the author only lists five on her website. The article might also mention that the book The Beebo Brinker Chronicles is a compilation of only four of the five novels, and excludes Journey to a Woman. HairyWombat (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It states in the Rediscovery section that the reprints of her books by Naiad Press excluded The Marriage. The Beebo Brinker Chronicles are generally considered a compilation of all the books excluding The Marriage. The Book of the Month Club selection that you referenced is not a definitive compilation of the collection. The state adaptation, for example, includes only material from I Am a Woman, Women in the Shadows, and Journey to a Woman. I don't know why the Book of the Month Club excluded Journey to a Woman. It could have been something as dull as copyright documentation was unclear. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

typo at top of article

I am glad to see this article on the main page, but I too was surprised by a weakness. The main photo was by Tee Corinne, except the name wasn't linked. I thought the photographer notable enough that we would probably have an article on her; I tried to link it and discovered the spelling was wrong, so I corrected that. It is trivial, but nonetheless not what I have come to expect from FAs, especially several hours in, when thousands of people have, presumably, read it. (And TC's Cunt Coloring Book is still in print, and on sale internationally, so it is not as if she is that obscure.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well. Of all the mistakes I've made on Wikipedia, I acknowledge this is the gravest. Shame on me. --Moni3 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not shame on any one individual. Kudos to the editors who did the work, and the editor who did most of it. It just struck me as an oddity that an error (an admittedly minor but unambiguous one, "above the fold") could slip through the FA checking process. That is where the weakness lies. I pointed this out only that it might aid us in tightening up our systems. (E.g. should it be standard to run a check on names in FA candidates? Google would pick up typos, of which goodness knows I make enough.) BrainyBabe (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article several times since it became featured. I may have added Corinne's name following its promotion. I honestly can't remember when I put that in. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Isn't the pulp fiction term much older than the 50's? This section seems to be misleading and should be clarified. 76.111.71.133 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Pulp paperbacks are not. Pulp magazines go back farther. --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is lacking

I just read this article because it was the featured article of the day, but I have to say that it is somewhat lacking.

1) Many of the claims are unreferenced. For example, it is stated two or three times that the author was "stunned" when she learned of the impact her books had on the gay community. Where does this assertion come from?

2) The article contains very little about the author's personal life. At the very least, her husband should be mentioned by name and her marital status listed in the factbox. This is standard procedure for writers (including men - see Ernest Hemingway for example). The article also states that the "difficult" marriage ended in divorce, but does not explain how or why the marriage was difficult.

3) Is she gay? The article doesn't say. Does she / did she have female lovers? The article doesn't say. This is a major oversight for such a lengthy article about a woman who is being held up as a hero for gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This article isn't really about Ann Bannon, it's about her work. +Angr 06:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Still it is a great article about her work. I just wish there was more about her in it. Great read though! Colincbn (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It was promoted to Featured back in 2007 - would it make it today? Part of the problem is she is still alive, so BLP rules apply. If she is not publicly "out" it's not possible to comment on her sexual orientation, which unfortunately is the key piece of information the article needs to be complete. Also can't comment on her husband's name. It's a "limitation" (feature) of Wikipedia. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
For an ostensibly biographical article, the current draft does seem somewhat thin on detail about its subject's life. Which would be a starting point for expansion in a normal article, but this is a featured one, so it's a little surprising. I would certainly accept that BLP issues abound here, so perhaps this article needs to switch from biography to one about her books? Much as Angr implies, it's most of the way there already. A shorter biographical article that was not a FA could then be created separately. --PLUMBAGO 09:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think should be included that is currently not? --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
For my part, the article reads as being a lot more about the novels than about the novelist. To be honest, my initial perception of the article as being bio-lite was in part down to the way in which biographical elements are threaded through the sections on the various novels. This is good writing, to be sure, but it's not as clear as it could (should?) be for an encyclopedia. Admittedly, after having now looked at articles on a few other novelists, this one isn't especially light on biography, but I still think it has an odd balance. Bunching more of the biographical material together at the top of the article, then opening the floor for the material on her work might work better. But perhaps too structured and formalised. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Great subject; suspenseful; looks well researched. Congratulations to all involved! But a "featured article" should be copy-edited: no one benefits from sloppy syntax. I fixed a few stylistic problems between "Background" and the 1960 books. It wasn't hard: the ideas are good and clear. Wegesrand (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters the article never names her husband. Centy – reply • contribs – 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is limited by WP:Verifiability. I was unable to find the name of her husband in a reliable source that discusses her life. --Moni3 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I too am rather surprised at the poor quality of this article, and was shocked it was a featured article until I saw it had been promoted in 2007. One of the glaring things I noted was as noted above; the lack of details of her personal life. This really does read as much of a history of the writings of the books she wrote, rather than a biographical article of her. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest should be included? --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What should be included? Much more about her private life (husband, lovers). Maybe some stuff about how many books she's sold. It should address the issue of her sexual orientation. If her sexual orientation is unknown, then this should be stated. If her marriage was to be "difficult" then it should say why it was difficult (or just delete that reference altogether). The bits about her being "stunned" at the effects of her book should be referenced to a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.251.244 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I contacted Cleis Press to ask them the number of books of Bannon's they sold and they replied, curtly, that they do not divulge that information. It wouldn't have been usable anyway because private emails are not considered reliable sources. I read once, and I hate it when I do this because it may take me weeks to find this again, that paperback novels in the 50s had first editions of around maybe 200,000 as opposed to hardcovers that had 50,000. This means that when a hardcover first edition sold out, they sold 50,000 copies, for example. Paperback novels had to sell many, many more to go through an edition. Odd Girl Out went through at least two editions with two covers. I Am a Woman I think also went through two editions, although I am less clear on this.
From part of a response I posted on my talk page earlier today: No one wrote about Bannon while she was writing her novels. Her books were not reviewed by magazines. All pulp novels were ignored. She was so secretive that the Daughters of Bilitis thought she and Marijane Meaker (writing as Ann Aldrich) were the same person. Starting in 1980 there was a trickling of re-interest in her books. When they were republished in 1983 a spattering of articles in gay publications. With each article was included one more fact about her. Fiercely protective about her identity while she was still at Sacramento State, she kept rigid boundaries about what she told to interviewers. Part of why I'm fascinated with her is the way she must have had to compartmentalize her life so completely it's as if she were two separate identities. Some of this was imposed upon her by her family and upbringing; other aspects of it she got so used to that it became the way she operated. Since the release of the books by Cleis from 2001-2003, she has offered still a little more about the details of her life. She has not discussed her relationships following her divorce in any depth. She has many friends and no partner/spouse and seems to like it that way.
Bannon does not publicly discuss her husband or children, and bound by the limits of verifiability, that information is not in the article. (And I'm curious to know how knowing more about her husband and children adds to any understanding about her.) Still, with all this missing, I believe that this article is the best available on her life anywhere. I agree that some components are missing, but nothing really I could add while WP:V and WP:BLP are in place and I have any self-respect. If there are any thoughts you have where some parts of the article could be strengthened within the limits of BLP and V, let me know. I'll go through my sources and see what I have. Your point is taken on the "stunned". I will cite it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Now added and cited. --Moni3 (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the interest in the husband and children stems from the nature of her writing, which was about gay issues at a time when there were some societal taboos in that area. As a reader, this makes me more curious about the relationship between her writing and her personal life than I would be about a writer working in a different genre (for example, Stephen King writes horror stories and that genre does not make a reader curious about his private life). I'd just like to add one thing: I think this article has attracted criticism simply because it was an article of the day. Articles of the day are usually expected to meet the highest standards. This article does not meet the highest standards, but it is still a reasonable article. So, I hope the editors who have put so much work into this article are not too offended by the criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not offended by the criticism. I've had a few other articles appear on the main page. This is my 10th main page day article, in fact. I'm aware that the criticism of the article can be "This article sux lol ahhaah", something vague like it's "lacking", or sincere questions about something that I missed when I wrote it as did the five or ten other Wikipedians who helped me copy edit it or made various suggestions. The fact that it involves homosexuality invites another element of weirdness. I don't know the background of anyone making these claims. Anonymous IPs as yourself could be 12-year-olds figuring out how to leave a comment for the first time or they could be related to the subject of the biography, testing me to see what the nutjobs on Wikipedia are going to say.
I completely understand the curiosity about the personal life. I found it mind-boggling to imagine living a life as Bannon has done. But other than the fact that she had two children not long after she married, that she was married and realized she did not want to be, her experiences in Greenwich Village gay bars, her duty to the concept of marriage because it was a woman's role to endure its difficulties--particularly in her family, her husband's opinions and reactions to her activities while she was writing, and the breakup of the marriage years later, she does not detail or discuss other parts of her personal life. I think the article meets the highest standards within the limitations of Wikipedia. There is a point where high standards in some areas equate to removing or neglecting to include some material. I could not, for example, go interview people from Bannon's past and present what they said. That's original research. I could not email people about their experiences and opinions of Bannon's life. Emails are not reliable sources. It's Bannon's choice to present her personal life this way and an unfortunate product of the views of homosexuality and pulp literature that her life has not been given more scrutiny from curious writers. Wikipedia can only act as a mirror to reflect what reliable sources have printed and there are clear limitations to this when not a lot of source material has been published about a topic. --Moni3 (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
An interesting discussion. Personally I hadn't missed the biographical details at all until I saw the Talk, but the author's bio is not my focus when it comes to literature. An article about an artist needs to say something about the artist and something about the work, but some artists manage to keep their private lives very private -- Pynchon, Salinger and B. Traven come to mind -- and anyway, Wikipedia is not People magazine, and that's a good thing.Wegesrand (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This would probably be considered original research, so I cannot add it to the article. Her birth name was Ann Dyas Weldy. Her mother was Jane Freer Dyas (b. 27 May 1911, Chicago; d. 12 May 1996, DuPage, Illinois). She took the surname of her step-father, Charles Kingsley Thayer, as a child. She attended the University of Illinois as "Ann Thayer"; she was a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma. See The Illio, vol. 59, University of Illinois, 1952, pp. 275, 508. Her married name was Ann T. Holmquist. See Stanford Alumni Directory, 1989, p. 1377. Ann has two daughters: Jane and Inga. Their father is still living, I think. LineChaser (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Linechaser, it's not OR if you can add reliable sources. Span (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of my info is from primary sources (1940 US Census, SSDI, marriage/death records, etc.) which are not acceptable. Such sources require corroborating evidence to be sure that the correct individual is identified. While validation of primary sources using corroborating evidence is fundamental to genealogical research, it is certainly original research by WP standards. I am hopeful that the biographical clues that I have provided here will lead to some acceptable secondary sources. --LineChaser (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair use book covers

I've removed the four non-free bookcovers that were on this article. The first two images were used in the sections "Odd Girl Out" and "I Am a Woman", which contain links to the main article for those books where the covers reside. There's no necessity to replicate them here. The second two were used in "Rediscovery" and "Legacy". In the former of those the cover itself was only loosely mentioned, and not specifically. In the latter case, it wasn't mentioned at all. All four of these images were being used decoratively. Further, the objection to covers in bibliographies has some weight here. Also, all four images had rationales that were meaningless to this article stating their use here as acceptable because "It illustrates an educational article about the book from which the cover illustration was taken" and "The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic". Neither statement is true for the usage on this article, thus all four images fail WP:NFCC requirements for this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted you about this on your talk page. The book covers from 1957 to 1962 are in the public domain. Gold Medal Books went out of business in the early 1970s. The book cover artwork copyrights were never renewed. --Moni3 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you prove that? A company going out of business does not automatically mean their rights are void. Other companies may have purchased rights to those books (for example Cleis Press). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Not the text. The cover art specifically. What sort of reliable source would suffice? Bannon herself? I have an email from her that confirms that the original artwork for her books is no longer under copyright. I can send it to you or OTRS. Bannon also gives an interview where she discusses the fact that the cover art for most of these pulp novels is no longer copyrighted. For the Cleis Press editions, other 50s and 60s pulp art was recycled on the Cleis covers. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be best to send it to OTRS. They can then re-tag the images. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you check OTRS tickets? --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not on the OTRS team. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The email has been sent. I've asked Moonriddengirl to check it. I don't know if she's around. In the past it's taken weeks for OTRS to respond with a ticket number. --Moni3 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the covers add substantially to the article and hope they can be re-added. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The non-copyrighted covers, sure, once they clear OTRS. The copyrighted, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The copyrighted, no. - Author Bio articles are improved by the inclusion of book covers, which are discussed in the article, they provide a visual narrative which is important in establishing the identity of the author, it's more than just decorative. Also, Wikipedia articles are meant to be stand-alone, that is, the article content could be re-produced in any medium (CD-ROM, printed in a book with no hyperlinks, copied to another website) without the need to have the rest of Wikipedia.Org to make it whole - each article is a standalone unit no matter where or how you read it. The rule about "only 1 copy on Wikipedia" breaks that model in this case, it assumes the reader will have access to the main articles about the books. In any case it sounds like these covers did not have their copyrights renewed, like the vast majority of things published between 1923-1963, they are now in the public domain, it's really a question of proving it was renewed, not a question of proving it was not renewed, which is the norm, not the exception. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If the book covers were historically important in some way which was discussed in the article, yes. The thing is, the book covers were not discussed in the article, except once in a passing reference. We do not reproduce fair use content all over the project because we have a fair use image in use once already. This violates WP:NFCC #3 on minimal use. And we do need to provide evidence of permission. That's why we have {{npd}}. Assuming something is copyright free by way of lapse is not evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

20th-century American novelists

Bannon clearly belongs in Category:20th-century American novelists. This is a diffusing category. There is no reason to put her in any of that categories parents when she is in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue messing with individual articles until some resolution is found regarding the larger issues with categorization. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, EGRS resolution has been reached. Are there wider category discussions going on? Span (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Several: a possible RfC for novelists, a discussion about category intersection, a request at ANI for a categorization freeze...Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The best way to approach the issue here is a CfD about Category:20th-century American novelists. Without that CfD even having been started there is no reason to not disperse into that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The category should exist, I don't think anyone disputes that. Why then would anyone want to nominate it for deletion? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
So then why are you preventing it from being properly dispersed into?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the article, you'll find that it is in that category. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ann Bannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ann Bannon. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ann Bannon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ann Bannon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Bannon/Archive_1&oldid=1136521427"