Talk:James Rollins/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:BlackOrderJamesRollins.jpg

Image:BlackOrderJamesRollins.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Name of author

Jim Czajkowski, James Rollins, and James Clemens are all three variations of the same person. The article covers all three aspects of the person (biographical aspects of Jim Czajkowski, the Sigma Force and other books of James Rollins, and the B&B and Godslayer books of James Clemens). Jim Czajkowski and James Clemens are redirects to the James Rollins article. It is far more confusing to arrive on this page expecting one name (like James Rollins) and seeing the entire rest of the article talking about "Czajkowski".

If Jim used only (or primarily) the pseudonym of "James Rollins", just as Samuel Clemens did with "Mark Twain", then the proper thing to do would be to use "Rollins" throughout the article, and it would match the title of the article better. However, Rollins is not the only name that James goes by or the only one under which he is well known by. James Clemens is nearly as recognizable of a pseudonym for him.

The one thing that is consistent throughout all three names is the first name James (or Jim in real life, which is a shorter version of James). Therefore, it would seem that simply referring to him as "James" throughout the article is both highly understandable and not at all confusing to the reader. It also is not at all inaccurate. The only thing it isn't, is proper English (because usually you would refer to a person in an article like this by their last name).

If breaking a minor grammatical rule in favor of making the article more readable is offensive and unacceptable to some, then I propose that the article be restructured to match a similar author, Nora Roberts, who has a different birth name and popular secondary pseudonym.

One other option is that I could ask Jim directly how he would prefer to be addressed. Unfortunately, I know from past experience that (a) people don't believe that you actually know the celebrity you claim to know in real life and (b) a person's personal preference often means very little here at Wikipedia. I suppose that OTRS could be used to substantiate the claim, though I'm not exactly familiar with how that process works.

Any thoughts? --Willscrlt (Talk) 03:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Links that don't link

There are a bunch of links on the page that simply link back to this same page. Is there any reason that I shouldn't de-linkify them? Revanneosl (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

None at all – been meaning to do it for months – please go ahead! Regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO should rewrite for style

I tagged the section "Action-adventure novels" of this article with {{Advert}}: "This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view." The questionable text here may have been contributed by User:Golucid. In the note here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Author_james_rollins_2008.jpg Golucid apparently says of himself "I, David Sylvian, am the photographer and webmaster of the Author James Rollins webstie hereby distribute this photo to Wikipeida. David" -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There's still some POV issues, particularly in descriptions of novels - for example:

• There are mysteries here older than humanity, and revelations that could change the world. But there are also things that should not be disturbed – and a devastating truth that could doom Ashley and the expedition: they are not alone. - from description of Subterranean
• While deep in the South American jungle, Conklin’s nephew, Sam, stumbles upon a remarkable site nestled between two towering peaks, a place hidden from human eyes for thousands of years. Ingenious traps have been laid to ensnare the careless and unsuspecting, and wealth beyond imagining could be the reward for those with the courage to face the terrible unknown. But where does this perilous journey end – in the cold, shrouded heart of a breathtaking necropolis – something else is waiting for Sam Conklin and his exploratory party. A thing created by Man, yet not humanly possible. Something wondrous...something terrifying...a mysterious metal known only as el Sangre del Diablo (or Devil's Blood), known only to the most ancient of Incas and a secret sect of Dominican friars who have already killed and died to protect its secrets. - from description of Excavation
• Solar flares have triggered a series of gargantuan natural disasters. Earthquakes and hellfire rock the globe. Air Force One has vanished from the skies with America’s president on board. - from description of Deep Fathom

Two obvious problems:

• Adjectives used quite generously: "remarkable site", "Ingenious traps", "gargantuan natural disasters".
• Purple prose: "Ingenious traps have been laid to ensnare the careless and unsuspecting, and wealth beyond imagining could be the reward for those with the courage to face the terrible unknown.", "Something wondrous...something terrifying...a mysterious metal known only as el Sangre del Diablo (or Devil's Blood), known only to the most ancient of Incas and a secret sect of Dominican friars who have already killed and died to protect its secrets.".

I can't help but wonder if those passages quoted above are cover blurbs.Autarch (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor Point but in reference to Judas Strain you say: "It is based on the Hindu temple complex of Angkor Wat." but Ankor Wat is Buddhist (theravada to be specific) not Hindu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is loaded with puffery. Clearly this was written by either a fan or a publicist. Whoever removed the advert tag was a wicked soul (he said in good faith).

Also: do we really need such lengthy descriptions of so many books in this article? Really? Thmazing (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I straightened the summaries of the Sigma series up a bit and also tried to remove some of the worst marketing blubber.^^ It's still quite a mess, but since I haven't read all of the books I'm not sure what should be rewritten or deleted.Die-yng (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)