Talk:Author/Archive 1

Archive 1

On "Fallacy" and Addition

I agree that the statement on New Criticism's view of authorship is wholly inaccurate (we might cite the New Critical discussion of "the intentional fallacy," which already has an entry), but I don't think Barthes's views in "Death of the Author" resemble the views of the New Critics. Barthes's views are much closer, it seems to me, to post-New Critical views, particularly structuralism and reader response criticism. Also, I think it's important to point out that "author" is not applied solely to literature. For example, there might be a meaningful link from this article to the entry "auteur theory". Jk180 21:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 5ljsfgs

On rhetoric

The lengthy middle section on Barthes & Foucault's ideas seems geared towards a specialist audience already steeped in the rhetoric of deconstruction and literary theory. Oughtn't it be revised for a general readership? Also, what about the counter-reaction of those who oppose the 'Death of the Author' theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wages

Packaging Companies make the statement that authors don't get paid wages false. Shouldn't this be mentioned? I'm not sure how valuable the wages section is at all to this article. I'd vote to remove it.AnjouRd —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC).

how

when and why did the author start writing childrens stories —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.39.216 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) '

Old Vandalism

Back in this diff various elements of vandalism occurred in the article. Including the addition of the word "jujor". Since the word sounds a bit like legal jargon it seems to have hung around since then, or maybe it was simply never noticed. In any case, thought I would explain why I took it out, and warn others interest in the article to keep an eye out for other remnants of past vandalism. Thenub314 (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Authoress??

Does anyone ever use this term? Really? I certainly don't think it should be one of the first things you read as the cite references a brief use in 1490s. KevinCarmody (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo stack excessive

On my 1366×768 lappy (and any screen wider) that column of right-floating file:|thumb|ers exceeds the height of the article text, which ends before the top of the Mark Twain thumbnail. So basically there is a big gap after the “external links” section, a full screen where I see nothing but Twain and the other-wiki-domain boxes (which I understand can be condensed together with a unified template). And to answer your next question: no, this doesn’t mean you should mean put half of the portraits on the left and add a few more. Because that would look awful. Please don’t. ―cobaltcigs 12:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, why are there so many pictures? Is this like that argument about cat pictures over on the page about cats? What an author looks like is probably the least important thing about this article; they look like a human. ~z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.134.196 (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes - all or all but one should be removed, as the previous suggested they're just people! — Saltmarsh^talk 07:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- all but one should be removed. Wahrmund (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image

The lead image was changed from a portrait of Mark Twain to an image of Toni Morrison, then reverted. I believe the original edit was constructive for a few reasons:

• Primarily, the image of Morrison shows her acting in her capacity as an author (giving a talk, which is a key activity for contemporary authors), while the Twain image is simply a portrait.
• The image of Morrison is more dynamic and of higher quality.
• Using Morrison promotes the goal of diversity of representation on Wikipedia, since women and people of color currently make up disproportionately few lead images in articles like this one.
• Morrison is more than sufficiently notable. While Twain's work is no doubt great, Morrison has won a Pulitzer, a Nobel, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Both Twain and Morrison are widely taught in high school and college in the United States.

I suggest that the change to Morrison be restored. Hammerout (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to +1 the support for this change. I am going to re-add the Twain image to later in the paper (he is significant for being an author in multiple genres), Sadads (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also added another image, and expanded the captions to make them more informative, Sadads (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Deep linking to an authors books

I'm not sure the convention for pages in author are where this would be discussed, but what is the policy about adding deeplinks to an authors books on online bookstores? I was interested in adding this to an authors page, but opted not to without knowing what the wiki convention is. Does anyone have any feedback on this issue?---- {{unreferenced}} If someone knowable has some spare time: Please insert a paragraph on the notion of "corporate authorship". Tipically in the U.S., they use the term "work for hire" (USPTO). What does it exactly mean? - Does it apply only when there are employment contracts, or does it apply also for mandated work?

Another term, someone could elaborate on is "collective authorship". Thanks.

Means that work done while working for others (you may even have not been asked to do it) or during a time-frame you were paid to work for others (if no restrictions were stipulated on a contract) belongs to the one that has paid you.

Collective authorship of a work means that the work belongs to more than one author.

---

I don't know who you are 209.105.200.36, and I don't mind changing from List of novelists to authors (not that it is worth the trouble), but it is totally uncalled for to remove all the one-line comments and I am going to put every one of them back. What you have done is damn near vandalism.

I'll type them all in if I have to, but I'd rather just go back to a previous version. Ortolan88 19:37 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

Please check the article now to make sure I restored the version you speak of. I am checking now to make sure no valid edits were made to the "authors version"--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)--174.117.121.23 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC). --mav

---

209, This is much better. In fact, it is excellent! I do think the lists on the list should be named list of biographers not biographers, but otherwise this is a great start on what I was just talking about in a long comment in Talk:List of novelists. Please take a look, and join in an effort to get all the names on all the right lists. Ortolan88 09:21 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

Good work and cooperation! Need help. There is a great list of "Poets" showing by country etc., far better than what I have under "Authors". Can't figure out how to get rid of mine and connect to this really good list. Also, maybe it should be called "Lists of notable or noteworthy or famous or something" to avoid overload.

There are lots of articles that say things like Robert Frost poet, so we want to keep a page that will pick them up. It seems to me that here is what we could do at that point:

1. Keep the page Poet and use it to define what a poet is, does, how they are different from other kinds of writers.
2. Perhaps also put some of the very best, known all over the world, poets on that page by name.
3. Put the rest of the poets on List of poets, and then subdivide that list into List of Persian poets, List of imagist poets, whatever.

Something like that. Ortolan88 10:50 Aug 2, 2002 (PDT)

I shifted some things in "Poets". See if this works or improve on it.

---

As Author (also by 209.105.200.xxx) included a longer list,

• I redirected List of authors to Author and
• moved Talk:List of authors to Talk:Authors

Docu 07:20 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Author. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328100026/http://www.copyright.gov:80/circs/circ1.html to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 04:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Author. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416211950/http://www.isbn-us.com/blog/2014/03/12/isbn-information-frequently-asked-questions/ to http://www.isbn-us.com/blog/2014/03/12/isbn-information-frequently-asked-questions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Barthes and Foucault

The contrary opinions of Barthes and Foucault seem simple enough to rebut but I'm sure that if the opposing positions were put forward the issues would then appear deeper than they are. Why are these opinions offered without rebuttal? --50.68.140.60 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Author/Writer different?

Heard that Author is one who gets published and paid for it! While writer doesnt. Is this true? Thanks!(DatedbmeforfilesPMThur.Aug20,20092stcent.Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC"X")SoCalKid (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Suresh Suresh balaganur (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Robot authors

The article should mention thhr fact that not authors are humans. Some are robot authors. Barecode (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Traditional publishing

I removed the long-time uncited claim that published author refers to one published by a traditional publishing house. This is contentious and unable to be cited and I feel moves away from what 'traditional publishing' is and focuses more on etymology of the word author. Let me know if you disagree. Asimoth (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge with "Writer"

The article's own definition of an author a writer of any written work. An author is a writer and a writer is an author. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom; both articles use the same definition. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
  Oppose per BD2412's edit to lede. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support The mere existence of this merger proposal proves that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy.

95.12.118.243 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

...and a Kafkaesque one. 95.12.118.243 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked IP vandal struck. BD2412 T 23:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Author" is a legal term of art – copyright requires "authorship", not "writership". If any merge is considered, Writer should be merged to Author. BD2412 T 01:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  What is the point of lawyering? The simple common sense shows us they are the same thing. Everyday I lose further my faith in Wikipedia. 95.12.118.243 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am teaching you that there are important differences between a "writer" and an "author". See Writer vs. Author: What’s the Difference?; Difference between a Writer and an Author; Writer V Author – What’s The Difference? BD2412 T 03:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BD2412 Please familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not 95.12.118.243 (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @95.12.118.243: I was going to try to reason with you, but then I saw your recent unprovoked vandalism of User:ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page, and the block that resulted from that action. The block should have been substantially longer. BD2412 T 12:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I looked at all three sources.

  • One says "The biggest distinction is that an author tends to be a full-time professional writer and often has multiple publications. The word writer encompasses a wider set of people, whether they publish books or blog posts, write professionally or scribble down musings." Also, "A writer can be anyone who writes anything. An author is a distinguished and professional writer who has published and sold their work." Also, "Authors are talented and dedicated writers." So this source says what the biggest distinction is, and then flatly contradicts itself, asserting that the distinction is something other than that, and then undermines itself by saying that it isn't either-or, and that authors are writers.
  • One says "If you’re a writer, you can write about other people’s thoughts and ideas. But an author has to come up with the idea, the plot and content. To my mind point 3 is the most important point – ‘you become an author when your books are published, but if your writings never publish, you remain a writer.’"
  • One says "The primary difference between a writer and an author has to do with whether or not your work is published."

  Putting it all together: The three sources agree on one thing, they reserve the term for a person whose own compositions have been published. Most of the rest of what they have to say is puffery. (By the way, none of them says it's a legal term of art.) None of this stands in the way of a merger. The article can be Writer, Author can redirect there, and Writer can recognize the term author and summarize what reliable sources say characterizes the subset of writers who are termed "authors". (None of the sources you provided is a reliable source. All of them are personal opinion pieces.) Beyond that, there's nothing that can be said about authors that isn't true about writers in general. No reason to have a separate article when 99% of what can be said about writers who are characterized as authors and writers who aren't is the same. Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Largoplazo: The Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, which is a bedrock reliable source, states that: An author in copyright law is the creator of original work. BD2412 T 12:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to Writer Authors write, and someone who writes is a writer, so it follows that even if not all writers are considered authors, all authors are writers. So 100% of what can be said about writers is true about authors. Therefore, Writer can be the sole article. It can include information that particularly pertains to writers who are considered authors, and then mention that writers to whom that particular information pertains are typically termed "authors". The article would need to cite reliable sources as to the distinction being made between authors and writers in general. Largoplazo (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Largoplazo: The article as written currently describes the legal significance of being an "author" of "literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, [or] certain other intellectual works". Are artists and musicians "writers"? BD2412 T 12:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• @DenverCoder19 and Treetoes023: I have adjusted the lede to make clear that "author", in the legal sense discussed in this article, includes visual artists and composers of music. A painter may not be a "writer", but they are an "author" of the work for which they seek copyright protection. Perhaps the wiser course of action would be to move the content specifically relating to publishing to the Writer article. BD2412 T 12:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @BD2412: Thank you, I'll withdraw my support. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Author → Authorship – Differentiate this article from Writer. Treetoes023 (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This will clear up any future confusion about the distinction between this and Writer. BD2412 T 23:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems like a solution in search of a problem, considering all authors are writers, but not all writers are authors. Steel1943 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Steel1943. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Merge with Writer

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

---

Please use this space to discuss the proposed merge of Writer into this article. Pinging @DenverCoder19:, who initiated the proposal. Joyous! Noise! 02:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Didn't we just discuss this? An "author" is the person credited with the creation of a work. The composer of a piece of music is an author. The painter of a painting is an author. If this article is merged into Writer, then that article will literally need to say that "writer" includes painters and musicians. BD2412 T 02:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• We just discussed it, and the discussion has been close, see above and the preliminary discussion at /Archive 1#Merge with "Writer", so, no, please don't let's discuss it again. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Largoplazo (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Sorry, I didn't see the earlier discussion in the archives: I only saw the relatively new "merge suggested" tags on the articles. I'll remove the tags from the articles, too. Joyous! Noise! 16:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Akgreg25 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Addutra.

— Assignment last updated by Savmanbanans (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarity and Grammar

This article includes a lot of unnecessary or off-topic information, as well as many grammatical errors and inconsistencies. Many words are used incorrectly or seem to be forced into the middle of sentences. Sentences are often too length, such as the introductory sentence which says "In legal discourse, an author is the creator of an original work, whether that work is in written, graphic, or recorded medium. Thus, a sculptor, painter, or composer, is an author of their respective sculptures, paintings, or compositions, even though in common parlance, an author is often thought of as the writer of a book, article, play, or other written work." Akgreg25 (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned that your changes obscure that an "author" is a legal construct, with authorship and its rights well-defined by law. If your interest is in writing about the role of "writers" (creators of specifically written works), the article on that point is at writer. BD2412 T 03:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there! I didnt change any of the information in this article except a statistic at the end. All of my edits consisted of me copying a paragraph or a few sentences that I felt could be written clearer rewording them, and then pasting them back into the article with my grammar/ clarity edits, so maybe because I re-pasted the whole thing it seems that I added the information myself? If your concern is that the way in which I rewrote sentences misconstrued information, then I apologize as I tried to keep the information the same as when I first looked at the article. However, from your comment, it sounds like you are concerned with the physical content, which I did not add, only edited for grammar/clarity's sake. If that is a concern of yours I completely encourage you to make those edits/ delete the parts you feel stray from relevant "author" information. I certainly will not be offended as I am not the one that put them there. Akgreg25 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You moved the legal significance, which is the primary significance of authorship, to the end. You removed the correct definition of author from the first line and replaced it with the colloquial meaning, rewording it so that it seems that the legal usage is secondary or an afterthought. However, historically, authorship has always referred to creation of all kinds of works, which is why the Constitution of the United States refers to the power to protect "authors and inventors", understood to include all creative efforts. BD2412 T 04:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I only changed the first sentence because it felt clunky, you are welcome to change it back or edit it. I thought that adding "however," immediately afterward with the full definition made it clear. I didn't see anywhere in the talk pages that the legality of authorship was the most important thing so I didn't find it necessary to have that first, but if that is the case, again, you are more than welcome to move it back. My intent is not to change the information presented in this article, only how it was presented because in some cases the sentences were clunky and unclear so please do what you see fit with what information is physically being presented. Akgreg25 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)