Talk:Hugh Howey

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Off-topic

Everything that needs to be said about the WOOL series is said in that article. In this article, tell us that he wrote it, link to it, and stop going on about it. Without repeating the whole story behind the WOOL series here, what is there to actually say about the subject of the article, the author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.178.155 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I'm thinking as well. The book series is undoubtedly notable, but I'm not really seeing much notability for the author outside of the series. I'll see what I can find, but so far I'm leaning towards redirecting this to the series page for Wool. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This "article" is not biographical, but bibliographical. As such it is simply Wikipedia as free publicity, yet again. This demonstrates as well as necessary that there is no meaningful editorial staff on Wikipedia, for editors would not let this pass as an article. Sad, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.3.17 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: The article does contain information that goes beyond the wool series. Yes, most of the data is bibliographical, but I cant see whats wrong with this. --Andreschulz (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCon blog

I thought about this and ultimately removed this from the article. Howey did come off as a jerk in the blog, but ultimately we have to ask the question or whether or not this really impacts him in the long term. The answer is no. There were a few places that commented on him, but nothing of any real note. Most of the locations that commented on him were of the non-notable book blog variety, the type that can't be used as reliable sources. Sometimes author nonsense ends up gaining widespread coverage, as in the case with authors such as Anne Rice or Candace Sams. While Ms Sams doesn't have an article, if she were to pass notability guidelines, the amount of coverage she's received over her comments would merit a section on the Amazon review debacle in her article. However the biggie here is that Howey only got a slight amount of coverage from various sources that could be seen as potentially reliable, such as the Daily Dot and the Charleston City Paper. Salon is not generally usable as a reliable source and the other sources were all blogs. Because of this, I'm removing this from the article. A good example of precedent would be when Emily Giffin posted on facebook and the fallout after that. While she never called anyone names, she received about the same amount of coverage and it was eventually decided that the incident wasn't of enough note to really merit a mention in the article. We don't cover every incident that every person has in their lifetime- just the most notable and most extreme cases. If and I stress if Howey does anything else like this in the future and gains even more coverage in reliable sources, then and only then we could potentially look at having an article about his interactions with others. And I stress potentially, because you'd have to really phrase it carefully to avoid it sounding like a tabloid and you'd have to show how this information is important as far as an encyclopedia entry goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life

In this edit, it looks like Howey himself (or someone using that name) removed the section on his marriage. This seems justified considering the cited article does *not* mention a wife and explicitly says he is single, but several articles seem to indicate that he was indeed married to her:

Kelley, Pam (19 May 2013). "Monroe author is making millions online with 'Wool'". The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved 6 October 2016.
The Geek's Guide to the Galaxy (July 2013). "Interview: Hugh Howey". Lightspeed. Retrieved 6 October 2016.

I can find no corroboration for the dates of either event.

@Hughhowey: Assuming you are the subject of the article, it is not generally considered appropriate to edit articles about yourself (See WP:COI). I'm personally more sympathetic than most to the idea that well-sourced contributions are well-sourced contributions, but the general procedure is to make suggestions on the talk page and let someone neutral make the article edits. Can you clarify if you removed this simply because it was uncited, or if this was removed for privacy reasons? Generally this sort of public information is not scrubbed from Wikipedia when there are multiple, independent sources on it. For more information, see presumption in favor of privacy in the biography of living persons (BLP) policy. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh Howey. 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/20160304025936/https://everydayloveart.com/category.php?category_id=18 to https://everydayloveart.com/category.php?category_id=18

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) 04:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]