Talk:Sarah Zettel

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

Firebird's Vengeance[edit]

"The Firebird's Vengeance" has in fact been published. I'll check the year later and add it. --Sir Ophiuchus, not logged in. 27 October 2006. 134.226.1.234

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sarah Zettel. 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) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that professor and media scholar Henry Jenkins wrote that the novel Fool's War by Sarah Zettel "makes an important contribution to the growing body of feminist literature about artificial intelligence"?
  • ALT1 ... that Sarah Zettel's first short story was written when she was 20 years old and was published in Analog five years later?
  • ALT2 ... that the novel Dust Girl by Sarah Zettel was in a Bustle list titled 12 Awesome YA Novels Featuring POC Protagonists in which the main character is mixed race and half-fairy?
  • ALT3 ... that Sarah Zettel and her friends created 'shared worlds' in their notebooks?
  • ALT4 ... that Sarah Zettel wanted to write a suspense book in 'which the mother gets to be the hero'?
  • ALT5 ... that Sarah Zettel's book Fool's War was listed as one of the 10 Chillingly Possible Sci-Fi Books About AIs Taking Over?

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Expanded within date, interesting read. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there no hook fact that isn't a man's opinion of this woman? Optics aren't great. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsif A man can't have a positive opinion of a woman? SL93 (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SL93: Of course he can, but do we want to say the most interesting thing about this woman is what a man thinks? Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure...unless everything related to men and women are sexist now. I'm not sure if there would be a complaint the other way around. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: Maybe we can see what the reviewer No Swan So Fine thinks. I'm actually suprised how even simple things are considered sexist and racist now.` SL93 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know I'm not saying anything is sexist, don't play the outrage card. I'm just baffled that the only thing, from an article you expanded, that you thought would be interesting enough for the main page is to quote a man's opinion. Both for its blandness and the implication that there's nothing else of note. Not, for example, that she became a published author age 20, that her first novel was nominated for one of the most prestigious awards in its field, or that she has a pet cat named after Buffy the Vampire Slayer... Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: Actually, I didn't know that. You stated "man" and emphasized that the person is a "man" without saying "person" so what was I to think? SL93 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never thought that it was the only interesting thing nor did I say that. I can always add new hooks, but you really weren't clear in what you said. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) To 1. I honestly think you immediately assumed I was calling you sexist and decided not to look at the issue and just get mad, but at least we're talking now. And, to 2. How is asking for a different hook that's more interesting - my first response - unclear about that? To make my thoughts explicitly clear, let me expand: There are many far more interesting things to say about Zettel than "someone praised her". I would take issue with any hook that was a context-less "X wrote Y, which Z said is good", and one of the main issues here is that it focuses more on the person/man and his opinion than of the person/woman it's ostensibly about. And this would be an issue regardless of gender, but then comes the extra layer that, should the hook appear on the MP, it appears like Wikipedia hasn't got anything to say about this woman that isn't framed through a man's opinion - or, that Wikipedia has chosen to frame this woman to readers of the MP through a man's opinion when that wasn't necessary. (And specifically with this hook, as a reader I would question why it quotes a man to say the book is an important feminist work, rather than just saying it is, you know.) Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kingsif: I can safely say that you're in the same boat by assuming that was the only hook that I could suggest. I wouldn't be suprised if you did call me sexist because just a simple section order issue in a woman's article that I created made an admin call me sexist. I moved the sections around which somehow made me not be the sexist degenerate that he thought I was. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the only hook you suggested, though. Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a rule that I have to submit all potential hooks? SL93 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I’m late to this! I had the jab yesterday and feel distinctly subpar. Here are three ALTs... DYK Sarah Zettel and her friends created shared worlds in their notebooks/wanted to write a suspense book in ‘which the mother gets to be the hero’/book Fool's War was listed as one of the 10 Chillingly Possible Sci-Fi Books Abouts AIs Taking Over? I’ll format these tomorrow. I should have been more attentive to the gaze of the hook, I know. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new reviewer is needed just for the alt hooks. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Placing here to make it clear to promoters. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Zettel&oldid=1217228130"