Talk:Tom Swift Jr.

Project Gutenberg link should be deleted
The link to the Project Gutenberg "Tom Swift" (original series) titles is not appropriate for this "Tom Swift, Jr." page. (Gutenberg does not have any of the "Tom Swift, Jr." books.) (I would delete the link myself, but the page is currently protected.) Cwitty 20:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edit on TSJ Page
I gather the article is locked to direct editing--yes? "Tom Barclay Series" should be "Tom Swift Series." -S Dickerson

Edits Expanding Factual Content
Now that the article is open to editing, I have done some, adding some basic info which I think is noncontroversial--or at least temperately expressed. And none of those offensive "links"! I will note that info on the Tom Swift movie and TV pilot does not represent original research done by me personally, but has been widely discussed in two independent TS discussion groups. I will take a bit of credit for research on artist Kaye. -S. Dickerson

Minor Correction
It's Wozniak, not Jobs--my error.-Scott Dickerson --67.101.86.15 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Link Not Relevant? Why?
As I noted at the main Tom Swift article, the juvenile series discussion group discusses juvenile series, which this is, and in fact consists of threads relating to the several Tom Swift series. So what's the thinking here? -Scott Dickerson --67.101.86.72 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Additions
On rethinking, I concur with the deletion mentioned above. The group is perhaps too new at this point. As to my suggestion: the cover sample provided is in some ways very untypical of either Kaye or the series. Keep it (as it illustrates an aspect of the article text) but add a more typical Kaye cover (SEACOPTER? RETROSCOPE?) and a smaple of Brey's work (MEGASCOPE may be his best). I'd also suggest adding somewhere one of Kaye's (better) interior illustrations. There's a very fine one facing page 46 of SEACOPTER showing not only Tom Jr., but his father and Bud Barclay. I judge the artwork to be particularly significant to the popularity and impact of the series.-SD67.101.86.72 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom Swift III link question
Anyone know why the link to [Tom Swift III] yields a redirect to the main TS article? Has TSIII been deleted? If so, why then do we still have TSIV? -SD Doxmyth 16:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit of unsubstantiated statement
It came to me that my insertion of the statement about TS fandom being "small" is a widely-held belief, but not substantiated. I've altered the statement. -SD Doxmyth 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fan references, TV pilot
I have edited-in slightly modified versions of the recently removed material. References to TSJ fandom and related fan fiction are substantiated by the existence of the linked sites given at the end of the article. To prevent anti-NPOV shortcomings, I have added another info site. After the link mentioning "fans," I have restored the FanFic link, FanFic being mentioned in the body of the article with reference to the continuing regard for TSJ and the existence of an active "fandom." As the site is my own, I would welcome insertion of a link to a second FanFic site, should one exist. I agree with deletion of the Frank Reade link, as the subject is covered in "Edisonade" and is not mentioned in the body of this article. As to the mention of the TV pilot--I see no objection, but would like to see the last editor's reasons for this and other edits. Some of these elements are subjects of ongoing discussion at the main Tom Swift article. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 16:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you'll look over this discussion page from top to bottom, Pak434, you'll see there's been something of a history of edit-warring and revert-warring. To forestall this, it's important for those making changes (other than CopyEdit) to discuss why they're doing so: especially when "reverts" start to happen. Please do this. I've provided my own justifications above, and you'll find further discussion on these and related topics at talk:Tom Swift. Thanks. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

With justifications as stated above, I have reinserted the material under discussion. I note that no objection to the mention of the TV pilot has been expressed. Although I understand the comments by MookiesDad, I am not persuaded of the accuracy of his characterization of the link and its textual antecedent. Amplification by MookiesDad, and outside comment, would be helpful. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 02:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

History of edits, talk page and article
With reference to my comment above, going over the history of edits re: this article and this discussion page illustrates what I mean. There have been frequent edits of a fairly substantial nature involving large-scale deletion of text, without the editor providing explanation or edit summary. Many such edits involved deletion of all mention of Tom Swift Jr. fan fiction, including a link to my site. This is now occurring again. Given this history, it's all the more important to state the nature of the objections, or the purpose of the deletion, to facilitate discussion and the possibility of reaching consensus. If you have stated your reasons elsewhere, Pak434, please provide a link. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As no explanation for the deletes ref'd above was provided on the occasion of the edit, and as there has been no response to date to my requests for reasons, and no comment on my stated justifications for the content, I have restored the deleted material. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your link spam here is just as inappropriate as it is on the main Tom Swift page. Don't you EVER give up? MookiesDad 23:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * MookiesDad, please consider this page concerning official Wikipedia policy: Civility. Doxmyth 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored some of the deleted text for the reasons stated, but refrained from reverting the disputed link, as I have requested comment on its appropriateness. In general, I would like participation in this discussion to go beyond the contrasting views stated by me and by MookiesDad. Doxmyth 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit, edit summary
MookiesDad, with reference to your recent edit of 12:25, 25 September, there are three matters I'd like to raise with you: (1) You classify it as a Minor Edit; it seems to me it doesn't fit the stated Wiki definition of same. (2) There was no discussion or justification provided on this Talk Page, although the edit appears unrelated to our previous and ongoing content discussion. (3) The Edit Summary you provided has no clear relation to the actual edits made. Doxmyth 15:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I note that the same user, as Pak434, repeated the conduct cited above (item 2; and no Edit Summary) within the hour. Doxmyth 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Notification to MookiesDad/Pak434
Please be advised that you have been listed here: WP:PAIN. It is your prerogative to add a comment or explanation beneath the posting. As the matter does not involve article content, please respond on that page only. Doxmyth 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You also have been reported on that page due to your unsupported attacks and claims and other libelous remarks. Please cease and desist your harassment of me. MookiesDad 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor's comment
As the recent reverter, Noumenes, has not provided here his reasons, I have restored the deleted material, my own reasons being amply covered above. I'd be particularly interested in the reason for deleting the TV-pilot information. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with revert by Noumenes. This text has been inserted numerous times over the objection of other editors. Stubbornly reinserting it again and again invites edit warring and flies in the face of an emerging consensus that it does not belong in the article. The mention of discussion groups, fandom, etc. appears to be an excuse to promote your fan fiction web site. This is why Wiki rules indicate that links to a website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines imply they can be linked to, should be avoided. Pak434 19:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Doxmyth - The consensus seems to be that your comments and link to your site are inappropriate and that you should cease your attempts at self-promotion. Furthermore a comment like "writing and plotting of the series occupies only the middle ranks of boys series fiction from that era, and despite earnest attempts by the authors and publisher," is opinion, not fact, and therefore is unacceptable. SuperDuperMan 20:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And the deal with the TV-pilot reference is...? Doxmyth 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why that was deleted, perhaps because you have failed to provide a verifiable citation for it. SuperDuperMan 02:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)