Talk:John W. Campbell bibliography

Merge

Re the merge suggestion: the article has been separated from John W. Campbell because it is quite long, and a good article review (see that article's talk page) indicated it should be cut. A query on the talk page drew the response that a separate bibliography was appropriate at this length. Mike Christie 04:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you were slacking or I was too fast!! When I put the merge tag on, all the content here was still also on the main page so it looked like duplication. For this reason the tag has been removed. Cheers ww2censor 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objective titles

I realize that the title is "simple." It is not objective and should read "Bibliography of John W. Campbell." This title suggests that other people may have bibliographies. (I know it's sounds stupid, but the problem is mainly with more controversial topics. But if we don't keep up objectivity in all titles, how can we, when the titles become controversial?). Student7 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is fine, and in fact typical of bibliographies: Special:Search/intitle:bibliography. Why is "bibliography of Foo" somehow more objective than "Foo bibliography" in this case? The meaning is clear and unambiguous. Starting the title with the author's name has technical advantages as the search box's text completion assists readers finding a bibliography when they don't know if it is separate. For example, typing "Barbara Cartland" into the search box gives entries for the authoress and her bibliography, while typing "Emily Bronte" gives no entry for a bibliography, so readers wishing to know her bibliography know to access the main article. This would not occur if bibliography articles did not start with the author's name. If special difficult cases exist for the naming of bibliographies, perhaps in some cases special considerations might mean a different name should be chosen (this should be discussed on the appropriate article). There is no need to complicate the vast majority of cases that are simple for the sake of a few tricky ones. --MegaSloth (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John W. Campbell bibliography. 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/20060616155954/http://users.ev1.net/~homeville/isfac/ to http://users.ev1.net/~homeville/isfac/

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) 03:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics described and semiconductor research of the 1030s were topics John included in Astounding/Anslog.

See title of this message. 2600:1700:F0C0:F530:9CF1:8965:BE19:49B4 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:F0C0:F530:9CF1:8965:BE19:49B4 1930s. 2600:1700:F0C0:F530:9CF1:8965:BE19:49B4 (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction.

Analog 2600:1700:F0C0:F530:9CF1:8965:BE19:49B4 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]