Talk:Patrick Rothfuss

Guest appearance on Critical Role
I don't feel skilled enough editing Wikipedia articles (particularly where citations and references are concerned) to add this myself, but it seems appropriate to add to the already-existing section on Role-Playing Games that he was a special guess on the Dungeons & Dragons web series Critical Role in 2016. Many other people who have appeared as guests on the show have it mentioned in their own Wikipedia pages. As reference, I would simply use the Youtube link for the video where he makes his guest appearance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpnCiF4im0

If someone else who is comfortable enough with how citations work on Wikipedia feels up to making this change, feel free to. 24.34.217.218 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Other sources
While we may use Rothfuss's own site as a reliable source about him, 'twould help if we could bring material from other sources too. -- Avi (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy Author?
The author page was created almost immediately after the author's first book was published. Much of what was written appears to have been entered by the author. This really needed to be cleaned up. The random list of links to interviews likely helped Rothfuss's ego but have no place in this article. It is also questionable whether this author is even noteworthy. Perhaps this is a candidate for deletion, especially if Rothfuss keeps writing his own entries. Synthfin (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. Many of the sources are not directly from Rothfuss, and we may use Rothfuss's own site as a reference about him as well. If you have concerns about notability, you nay tag as prod or nominate AfD, but blanking sourced material is not the proper method. -- Avi (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The author is not noteworthy or barely so. Others have already said this article needed serious cleaning up. I did so. It was not blanking. If people are going to revert the page, this page is a likely candidate for deletion. Obviously Rothfuss would like all this to remain untouched, but that isn't going to happen. Synthfin (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Rothfuss himself wants; however, his work won at least three awards, which is evidence of notability as per WP:AUTHOR ((c) has won significant critical attention). If you disagree, you are welcome to tag using prod or AfD. -- Avi (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I do disagree. Rothfuss's character has been seriously questioned and a close review of the change history shows questionable activity. He's only written one book and almost immediately after it came out this page appeared proclaiming many things. Anyone who reads this article knows it needs a serious clean up. The author and publisher have no place making these types of entries. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote authors. This is meant article should have an encyclopedic tone. It needs to be trimmed and cleaned up. Synthfin (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up, yes, deleted, no. Is it false that he won three awards? Is it false that the book was a New York Times bestseller? Anything that is well sourced, including non-peacocky bio information from his own site (as per WP:SELFPUB) is perfectly acceptable. Please ensure that any personal antipathy to the author and his publisher does not affect the application of wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I have checked and updated (where necessary) the links, converted in-line html to citation templates, and I tagged the article as onesource, as I agree that having other sources would be very preferable. -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think this is a likely candidate for deletion. I have no apathy toward the author. I'm only stating the facts as I see them. Others before me have questioned a) the creation of this page which seem to have been done by the author and b) the additions to the page which seem to have been done by the author. I don't care if the author has one book or three, he seems non-noteworthy. The page also has a lot of peacking puffery. Synthfin (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By all means, then, put it up for AfD if you think it is not notable. -- Avi (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I created this page, along with the pages for several other authors and I can verify that I am not Pat Rothfuss and do not even live on the same continent. At the time of creating this page, the book had just come out in the USA as a bestseller and achieved a high degree of critical acclaim. The author had already won one notable award for it (an L. Ron Hubbard Writer of the Future Award in 2002 for an extract from the second book in the trilogy) prior to the first book's release. Subsequently it has won a further number of awards, been translated into a dozen foreign languages and discussions have taken place over film and licensing rights. If people still feel that the author is not note-worthy enough for a Wikipedia article, then by all means put it up for deletion.--Werthead (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria for creative professionals are having created a well-known work subject to multiple articles, or has won has won significant critical attention. Rothfuss has won a Quill Award and was one of the Publishers Weekly's best books of the year for 2007.  He also won a contest (though run by L. Ron Hubbard, eeeewww!) and he's a NYT bestselling author.  Frankly, I think this would be a speedy keep at AFD.  I would certainly !vote keep in a heartbeat, I can't see any reason to nominate it.
 * Incidentally, it's not whether the author is noteworthy, it's if the author is notable, which this one clearly seems to be. Noteworthy is an aesthetic judgement that we shouldn't indulge in.  Notability is easy to demonstrate unequivocally using sources.  Like the ones already on the page.
 * Finally, there has been so many editors active on the page, even if Rothfuss has edited the page, I don't believe there's any reason to think it's still a problem or WP:COI issues left over. References to his web page aren't unduly self-serving and the controversial bits (awards, best-selling) are to independent sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications there. Hubbard did die 16 years before Rothfuss won the award though, so it doesn't have any further links to him any more other than the name. It's quite common to see it called just the 'Writers of the Future' contest informally, and it has been credited with kick-starting many young and new authors' careers.--Werthead (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Werthead sure seems to know much more about publishing than the average person. Seems like this could be Rothfuss's UK publisher or something. This is all very fishy. 209.86.226.15 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I run a book review blog and deal with numerous publishers and their publicity departments, so yes, I would guess that I do know more about publishing than the 'average' person.--Werthead (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely unsourced speculation on your part, 209.86.226.15. Please focus on content, not editors, as per WP:NPA. -- Avi (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Patrick Rothfuss is an award-winning New York Times bestseller. Regardless of whether he's writing one book or three, I'd say that makes him notable.  If someone can find evidence that there's a controversy about those awards, make an entry for it, but that in itself is notable as well.


 * Incidentally, the antipathy some editors have demonstrated here is somewhat shocking. Wikipedia pages spring up.  That's how they get started, and when they do they're going to be sloppy and need a lot of improvement.  That doesn't imply a conspiracy by Mr. Rothfuss or his publishers, and I think it's inappropriate to get all "j'accuse!" on an editor because they know more about publishing than the average person.  That's the point of Wikipedia; to accumulate knowledge and allow those who are more knowledgeable about a given topic to refine it.  This is a grand, imperfect endeavor we're embarked on, folks.  Let's assume goodwill until proven otherwise.  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no new arguments to add to the discussion, however, I'd like to state that I agree with what The Cap&#39;n said.
 * mfg, OldDeath - 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Much cleaner now, commensurate with the significance of the actual author. 99.174.234.211 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Quill Controversy
Regarding the Quill Award, there appears to be an investigation underway regarding the tactics used to get nominations and wins. Some have pointed out the Quill awards appear to no longer exist. Their official web site www.thequills.org is gone and www.quillsliteracy.org is only a placeholder page. The award appears to have only run from 2005 to 2007 and it no longer seems to exist. The problem with the Quill was anyone could vote any number of times and some of the winners appear to have conducted organized voting efforts to ensure wins. The matter is unresolved at this time but there is some speculation whether Rothfuss was one of those in inquiry. Rumormill says yes, but have to wait for offical word. Synthfin (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Source? What official body is conducting this enquiry and where has this been reported? Are similar 'investigations' underway into the Writers of the Future Award which Rothfuss also won?--Werthead (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rumourmill is worthless for anything, and irrespective Rothfuss passes notability through other means. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable Awards and honors
The "Awards and honors" section (formerly simply "Awards") contains several non-notable listings, specifically the Fantasy Literature listing and the Publishers Weekly listing. The Fantasy Literature entity is so non-notable that there is no Wikipedia article for it. Hence, membership in a Fantasy Literature best-of-the-year is even less notable. While Publishers Weekly is indeed notable, membership in their annual best-of-the-year lists does not seem to be. I spent some time (admittedly, not an exhaustive amount of time) checking to see if the Wikipedia articles for other authors who had written a PW best-of-the-year book mentioned this PW recognition, and couldn't find any such mention. Accordingly, I'll remove these two "honors". --BehemothCat (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too fussed about the removal of the Fantasy Literature mention but the Publishers Weekly honor seems legitimate. It's possible other articles don't mention it but, especially for an author with precisely one book to his credit, it seems both relevant and on point. (Oh, and "Awards and honors" is the typical name for such sections in use on at least 30,000 biographical articles.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol statement
Since when it is interesting or relevant knowledge to know that someone abstains from consuming a particular drug? Does Patrick Rothfuss have a history of alcohol abuse that somehow ties into his works or persona, thus making the fact that he doesn't drink all the more significant? Should we go all the way, listing each drug that he doesn't use, and by counterpoint, list which ones he does? I cannot see why this is listed, and I believe that without some kind of relevancy, this statement ought to be removed immediately. rpgod2 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is somehow important - or at least it has the same importance as if he were vegetarian. However, the way this has been added to the article shows room for improvement...
 * mfg, OldDeath (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced claims or claims not from WP:RS
will be removed. --Lexein (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a reason the "citation needed" tag exists, you don't *have* to be a rude, absolutist.Litch (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Influences
Apparently the infobox author influences and influenced parameters have been deprecated, in favor of writing about those influences, sourced from RS, in the article body. So any influences listed in the infobox won't be seen, and can be removed. --Lexein (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth
ISFDB gives June 3. Does anyone have a source for June 6, as we say?

--P64 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patrick Rothfuss. 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/20160515123650/http://cheapass.com:80/node/215 to http://cheapass.com/node/215

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bookstore?
I've heard he's part-owner of a bookstore (A Room Of One's Own) in Madison. I can't seem to find this on their website or his, but I'm pretty sure it's true, as he's made an awful lot of public appearances there for someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the place (though it is a very nice bookstore, I can tell you). Can someone find a reliable source? Sumanuil (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Here’s a link. . Capitalismojo (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Occupation: Writer
Should this be changed? Perhaps to "philanthropist", or "internet celebrity" or something similar? The article doesn mention him having written anything in years, nor has he talked about doing so, and his own editor claims to believe he's given up entirely. It's very clear these days that his primary occupation is actually running Worldbuilders. It's true that writing is what made him famous, but we wouldn't keep "footballer" in the occupation box of a retired athelete... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.246.62 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Master's Degree
The infobox states that Rothfuss has a Master's Degree from Washington State University. Someone has tagged the statement with a. The bio on his own website states: "Patrick then went to grad school. He’d rather not talk about it." It does not state that he graduated. https://www.patrickrothfuss.com/content/author.asp If there is no actual evidence that he has an M.A. this should be removed from the article.
 * Looks like it is sourced now.Lulfas (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Criticism/Fan Backlash
There is at present a sizable backlash from former fans, upset not just that the author has failed to produce a 3rd novel that he asserted existed years ago, but that he has since turned into a full-time self-promoter and Twitch streamer, in love with being famous. If Wikipedia's article doesn't touch on this at all, it's not communicating the big picture. 135.180.193.96 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * While it is true that he has become a rather controversial person to discuss, especially on Reddit and YouTube's writers, books, and fantasy circles, it has not yet reached the point necessary for the full Wikipedia article to be updated. Rather, it would be prudent to update his job status as more than just a writer, he does stream but that is not yet his full occupation, to read as more an entertainer overall or something. Unless there is widespread media backlash, proper journalistic investigations or just an admittance from him I see no reason to add it in yet. The only accurate source we have of any controversy that could be put on the Wikipedia article is from Betsy Ross (His Editor at DAW Publishing), and those were all tweets that have since been removed with only a small formal apology made. Unless he himself releases a statement or DAW books releases a statement we cannot include any controversy in the Wikipedia as it would be hearsay. No one from Rothfuss' team has released or indicated that he does not plan on releasing anything regarding the 2021 end of year stretch goals. Including anything right now would mean pulling sources from fans, which is not how Wikipedia works. Sckpptv (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * His editor's name is Betsy Wollheim, not Betsy Ross. And this is becoming too big an issue to ignore. It would be appropriate to point out that he has promised to release a chapter of Doors of Stone in response to a stretch goal for a charity fundraiser, but months have passed since he reached this goal, and he has abandoned his promise without comment.
 * Rothfuss has not written anything of any substance since 2014, when his last novella was published. It has been eleven years since the last book in his trilogy, and there is zero evidence that he will ever complete it. How much time needs to pass before this article acknowledges that writing is no longer his profession? Stallion Cornell (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your addition is perfect. It mentions (with citations) the issue that he has promised to release information as part of a fundraiser, but has not yet acted on it.  Further criticism is fine as long as it is cited from reliable sources and not just opinion or WP:Synthesis. Caidh (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing the addition to the article noting that Rothfuss has not produced the chapter he promised for charity. This is entirely noteworthy and is the subject of a great deal of public discussion, and the article is woefully incomplete without it. Stallion Cornell (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * please do not add content to the article without a reliable source. Melcous (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I provided the cite (to his blog) still in the article showing that he had made promises as part of a fundraising goal, after previously providing a cite to a third-party noting that he had not provided the chapter he promised. That earlier citation was removed, so now the article rightly notes what he claimed he would provide (and even a date, now in the past, by which it would be provided) but says nothing about whether he actually did it. There can't be a citation showing that he fulfilled his promise, because no such source exists. Showing that he didn't requires proving a negative, and any citation (which would be to the only websites that would bother to cover the issue at all) provided to that effect gets removed. So is the only option to wait for Rothfuss to blog about the fact that he never released the chapter? What acceptable source would have reason to publish a "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" non-news story? I don't have any great interest in Rothfuss and his work, but I find it bizarre that anyone on the internet can easily google and find out that the chapter wasn't released, there is no evidence to the contrary, and yet Wikipedia is repeatedly reverted to a state of ignorance about a fact that is public knowledge. I don't think one can make a serious argument that the claim that the chapter hasn't been released is incorrect or even unverifiable, instead a standard for verifiability which may be appropriate elsewhere is being applied here despite making the article worse. 208.59.185.238 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a reference that mentions the fact that the chapter has not been published. Seems silly to me, too, given that a reference that something hasn't happened is kind if a ridiculous thing to demand. Stallion Cornell (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it ridiculous to include information that a public figure doesn’t live up to their promises? 216.152.4.19 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Podcasts removed from article
@ImaginesTigers Will you please explain why you removed mention of two podcasts Rothfuss started (The Story Board and Untitled Patrick Rothfuss) and his appearing on the podcast Writing Excuses (edit reason "Removing content attributed to fan sites")? Writing Excuses, for example, invites many different authors to discuss a variety of topics related to the craft of writing, so I wouldn't characterize it as a "fan site". None of the citations were being used as support for any controversial claim about Rothfuss, but merely noting that he produced a podcast or appeared as a guest on a podcast. Lee Choquette (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Unfinished" versus "Ongoing"
curprev 09:56, 16 November 2023‎ 109.145.92.174 talk‎ 21,029 bytes +3‎   Changed "ongoing" to "unfinished", since the only source we have for any continuing work on the series is Rothfuss himself, and the fact that he is unable to show people a single chapter he promised to release back in 2021 rather suggests there is no such work taking place. undo Tag: Reverted

curprev 10:08, 16 November 2023‎ Mountaincirque talk contribs‎ 21,026 bytes −3‎   Restored revision 1185184607 by Melcous (talk): Let's not politicise this, the most recent source we have shows that author claims ot be working on the series, "unfinished" implies that it has been formally dropped, for which thee is no reference to support undo Tags: Twinkle Undo

The most recent source we have which isn't Rothfuss himself is his editor saying she thinks he has written nothing in years: https://www.newsweek.com/kingkiller-chronicle-editor-believes-author-hasnt-written-anything-years-1520812 (cited as [17])

Do we consider Rothfuss' own assertions sufficient evidence in themselves? Is it standard Wikipedia policy to take people at their word regarding their own actions without any kind of substantiating proof? 109.145.92.174 (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)