Talk:Stephen Baxter (author)

Planned rewrite/rearrange of Stephen Baxter section
I plan on merging the pages about the Stephen Baxter series into this page, each series in its own section, such that the Stephen Baxter section here consists of a single page about the author and overviews of the series (this page), and then seperate pages for each novel (in addition to the book covers and the categories, of course, with the exception of the 'Stephen Baxter series' category.) If noone has any objections to this, I'll make the change in about a week's time (or sooner if people agree with the changes). Mike Peel 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to merging the series articles into this page. I have never read a Stephen Baxter book, so I am not objecting because I am some fan of his; I am objecting because most popular book series on Wikipedia have their own article, so Stephen Baxter's book series should as well. I glanced at the series articles, and they seem fairly well-written. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lowellian. Most major world creations by authors on Wikipedia have separate articles.  Ie:  Revelation Space by Alastair Reynolds, Discworld by Terry Pratchett, and Ringworld by Larry Niven.  I'd rather see a more in depth article about Mr. Baxter himself at this location.--GregoryEvans01 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am proposing is actually very similar to two of your examples - that of Alastair Reynolds and Larry Niven, where you've linked to articles on specific books rather than a series of books. Discworld is a special case due to the length of the series (34 books atm, and still growing).
 * All of the pages I am proposing to merge into this one consist of a couple of lines summarising the series, followed by a list of books in that series. We already have the latter part here, and I see no need of duplication, and the former would give a better overview of the writing that Stephen Baxter has done than just a table. If the size of the overviews subsequently grows, then I would have no problems with reinstating the pages (and leaving a short summary on this page, with a Template:Main link). I don't plan on removing any content, just the duplication of content. Mike Peel 15:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have an objection in that the A Time Odyssey series is (officially) a collaboration between Stephen Baxter and Arthur C. Clarke, so putting that content solely on Mr. Baxter's page would not be wholly accurate. -- KelleyCook 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I object for the same reason as Lowellian. Hektor 14:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I give in, and will move onto other pages. :-) --Mike Peel 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just done something similar to what I'm proposing here at Raymond E. Feist. I'm willing to leave the series pages in place, but the content on them would be a duplication of what I'm proposing to put onto this page. --Mike Peel 09:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Distinguished?
is 'distinguished vice-president' the title of the office? if not, its use is pretty pov, doncha think?Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Who claims he is 'distinguished' and on what basis?  How many others with biographic articles on Wikipedia could be claimed to have 'distinguished' roles?  I dare say all of them.

Manifold series
is very repetitive. M:Space was memorable eye-opening experience, M:Time had a few intriguing concepts, but M:Origins was just rehash of the other two. This should have been edited down to just one book, rather than trilogy. vroman (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

politics?
he librul? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.57.163 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

He was born and raised Roman Catholic.
How is this specifically relevant? Does it influence his writing one way or the other? Seems a bit out of place otherwise. Colony Of Electric Machines (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's relevant. This article is supposed to be about the man, not a publicity listing of his books.

Transparent publicity?
This looks like yet another article about a person that says next to nothing about him but, instead, serves as a free advertising forum for his works. This article should either be mainly populated with information about its subject, or else should be removed, since the other articles about his books already provide more than enough free publicity and this one says almost nothing about the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.205.21 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Odd use of tables
Rather than using a simple bulleted list or the citation template, tables have been used to list his works. Is there any consensus for this? It appears to go against the basic style recommended by Bibliographies. Fæ (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Writing style section
The Writing style section dominates this article. It would be better for the story of his career to be outlined and later an analysis of his body of work. Also most of the Writing Style seems to be original research, being just an appraisal by an editor who has obviously read a lot of his work. Writing style statements needs to be sourced to reliable commentators. Ashmoo (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Baxter (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/20100208114047/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Judge2.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Judge2.html

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) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)