Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Noteworthiness of Tumblr incident[edit]

Has really no one thought about the Tumblr thing? I am not explaining it here. If you know about it, I'm sure you understand but If you dont, get ready for a lot of cuss words

I have not heard about the Tumblr thing outside of [article], but having read it, I'm doubtful as to whether it is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Given that the article deals mainly with major works and projects written and undertaken by this individual, a social media spat concerning "a Tumblr post from user 'virjn'" seems largely insignificant; I've been unable to find mention of this incident outside of a few disreputable news outlets and Reddit. Does anyone object to removing the paragraph? Its inclusion does seem well-intentioned, it just seems like a very minor thing to mention. brendanhylin (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit more than just a social media spat, and the sources listed (including the one I just added) show this (USA Today, Slate). It was covered in sources like the Daily Mail (not reliable, just showing notability) and became a large part of his life at the time. Regardless, the section is well sourced, though it could stand to be a little shorter perhaps. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020[edit]

Under the vlogbrothers section of the article, add: “John Green is also responsible for naming Wallet Island on the White River, a cool place that is only land part of the time, has a seating area, and one may find expired beer. He named the island because he once found a wallet there. The island also later became an official place on Google Maps. The video in which Wallet Island is mentioned appeared on the vlogbrothers YouTube page on June 16, 2020.” 216.15.59.34 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essayist[edit]

John's new book "The Anthropocene Reviewed" is a book of essays. As can be seen here: [1] his book is described as a "collection of personal essays". It would be accurate therefore to call him an essayist, which should be added to his introductory sentence.

Spidermanshotuncle (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)spidermanshotuncle 27 October 2020[reply]

Given that the essays were written for a podcast and published in a book, I think it's far more accurate to call John an author and a podcaster. Those who have been called essayists (Zadie Smith, Ralph Waldo Emerson) have used essays as their primary medium for writing and expressing ideas, which can't be said for John. Many prominent writers who have published essay collections, such as James Baldwin, have been called authors, novelists, and writers more generally. brendanhylin (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-anthropocene-reviewed-signed-edition/9780525555216-item.html?. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)

Double on Call[edit]

Is there any record of his short story collection? I can’t find anything online that isn’t seemingly copied from this article. If there is a reliable source for it, then problem solved, obviously, but if not, I have my doubts as to its existence. Packer1028 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It exists and has a Goodreads entry explaining its background.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry[edit]

Green has stated that he has 2 Irish Great Grandfathers. Play below youtube video from 1 min 42 secs onwards. Migration: Crash Course European History #29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN8fjAjLLpg&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtMsMTfmRomkVQG8AqrAmJFX&index=30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.138.183 (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 December 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Necrothesp's point regarding long-term significance is well taken, but the consensus here is that the author is primary nonetheless. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


– Just from a quick page views perspective, John Green (author) is the clear primary topic among John Green's. His average of 1662 views/day is unrivaled by any other listing on the disambiguation page, with the next John Green who uses a parenthetical disambiguator, John Green (headmaster), getting 4/day. The first page of a quick Google search also only returns results on the author. He has had a sustained career of success in multiple fields and is listed as a Level 5 Vital Article. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure why you're choosing to completely ignore pageviews. But even regardless of pageviews, the number of people clicking through to various John Greens is important. Data from WikiNav also supports the author being the primary reason people type "John Green" into the search box. The first chart shows people not directly searching or coming from outside Wikipedia are frequently coming from other John Green pages and that the vast majority of people who make it to the disambiguation page move on to John Green (author). About 90% of the time people visit John Green, they click "John Green (author)".--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception needs changed[edit]

Instead of focusing on legitimate critical response, the section seems to get sidetracked on blogposts complaining about questionable instances of systemic sexism. I think this response is (barely) noteworthy, but should not take up half of the section when John Green’s books are most notable for their overwhelming positive reception and impact on the young adult sphere. Perhaps a section on the awards he’s received and expanded retrospective evaluations of his work. I don’t want to come across as a bad faith fan trying to push a narrative here (I’ve never read any of his books) but most reputable sources give him a positive reception, and this article presents him as much more polarizing than necessary. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:A89B:A314:267E:CE0B (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have been majorly overhauling this article for the past couple weeks, and haven't had the opportunity to expand this section. I think the current discussion on sexism in literature is fairly off-topic, but worth having something small about. I will reduce that section, and it will become more proportionate once I (or anyone) adds more of the overwhelmingly positive reception he has received across his career. Also, you can find all his awards in the section John Green#Awards and they are mostly mentioned for each book in the Career section, though it might be worth giving them a passing mention in the reception section as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Never go to war with a noun" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Never go to war with a noun and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Never go to war with a noun until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit December 18 2022[edit]

The born field currently reads that John Green was born in Indianapolis although this is where he currently lives as to my knowledge he was not born there as he grew up in Orlando. I don’t know for certain where he was born but it wasn’t Indianapolis. 72.142.115.10 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the ariticle verifies that he was born there. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Green/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Images are all appropriately licenced. Some comments on sources: footnote numbers refer to this version.

I'm not sure what the separate "primary sources" section is intended to cover -- some of these are not primary sources -- the NYT bestseller list, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral726, I'm going to pause the review till these questions are addressed, as it might make quite a difference to the article if many of these sources are removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I will go through these sources and see what I can dig up. In terms of the "primary sources", since they need to be used with intention and care in BLPs, I wanted to separate them out for clarity/thoroughness. In terms of the NYT Best Seller, my thought was that the list is the primary source for a book being a best seller, versus another new organization mentioning it became a NYT Best Seller. What are your thoughts on retaining or getting rid of the separation? Cerebral726 (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For GA it doesn't matter at all; I would probably leave it as is. If you decide to take the article to FAC, you might seek another opinion. If I were doing the source review at FAC I would certainly ask about it, but I'd have to think about whether I would ask for a change. I have certainly seen other articles with a primary source/secondary source separation, but it's usually more like this, where the primary sources are over a thousand years old. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I felt it was helpful for editors and readers understanding, but it is a bit unique/unusual for the application. I'll leave it as is for now as you suggest; they could easily be recombined at a later date if the separation was seen as detrimental or overly complicated. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:, I have addressed all the sources. Let me know if you have any concerns about the sources that were used to replace questionable sources, or any further comments about the ones that I felt were acceptable to keep. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes and replies above; a handful left over. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good now. Will follow up with the rest of the review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

I've agreed with all your edits so far! Strongly agree they are improvements.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Much clearer phrasing.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut down the two paragraphs you mentioned. Let me know what you think.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the first sentence, I agree it's superfluous. The second I rephrased, and slightly expanded using the WSJ article it cites. My goal with both of those sentences were to match the sources animated descriptions (which uses phrases like "mega stardom") in an encyclopedic way. Hopefully the rephrasing helped tone it down while retaining the faithfulness to the sources. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cut some of the excess detail, hopefully that helps. I do think that the book being the top selling book of the year (especially 2 years after it's release) is notable enough to necessitate inclusion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cut. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed to singular "channel".--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tease isn't worth including anyways, cut entirely.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
replaced "ventured to find" with "sought".--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased, tried to pare it down slightly as well.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cut.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Integrated.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, cut down.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Integrated your suggestions--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pared down.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took a pass at integrating the content. Let me know what you think.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that paragraph.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cut this entirely while cutting the excessive review quotes you mentioned.--Cerebral726 (talk)
Fixed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the content. I'll do spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the above fixes look good; nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

There are several minor inaccuracies in the above. I'll wait for you to fix these, and then do another pass. Passing the spotcheck is a must, so if you think there might be other slight inaccuracies in the sourcing you might want to go through and check before asking me to make another pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a pass through now that I've addressed your comments.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have completed my check. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spotchecks above all look good now. Second pass below.

Second round of spotchecks

Just one very minor issue. Passing GA; congratulations! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that last issue. Woo! Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
John Green with a "Pizza John" shirt
John Green with a "Pizza John" shirt

Improved to Good Article status by Cerebral726 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Green; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Cerebral726: I think using that picture definitely makes sense, since we have it ready, so I would go for either ALT0 or ALT3. You met all the criteria, although I must address that I've slightly edited the paragraph about Pizzamas by myself, so now it should be clearer that the initiative contributes towards the donations to Partners of Health. Also, can you confirm that this is just your third DYK nomination? Just to be sure you don't need to submit a QPQ review... Oltrepier (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I really like both of those hooks, so I'll let others decided between the two. Thanks for fixing the lack of clarity in that Pizzamas paragraph. And you're correct, I still got a couple freebies left to go! --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerebral726 and Oltrepier: while I'm sure the video was released under a creative commons license, I'm not 100% sure that a non-de minimis merch design was intentionally released under the same license without a non-commercial restriction. Is that something to make hay out of? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... That's a good question worth looking into. That definitely falls outside of my expertise. I have reached out to the original Pizza John creator, since this is faithful enough to that original that they would still presumably hold the copyright to this design as well if they hold the copyright to the original. However, since Pizza John is based off a photo/screenshot of a video that John took of himself (in all likelihood), was John's face adequately transformed to constitute a separate copyright from John's photo? Cause if John holds the copyright to both, then he has definitely released it through that CC notice on the YouTube video. --Cerebral726 (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The copyright holder has given permission to use the photo in this context. Not sure if that clears us, or enforces it as a copyrighted work of art! --Cerebral726 (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would – the designer has to release the design under a compatible Creative Commons license. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reaching out to the copyright holder asking if they'd be willing to release the image into CC. I will provide any updates from them. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John Green sporting a mustache during "Pizzamas".
John Green sporting a mustache during "Pizzamas".
I haven't received a response yet. I uploaded a version without the questionable copyrighted material, hopefully that would be an acceptable alternative if we decide the other needs to be removed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerebral726: well, let's wait for a response for now. I really do like the first picture. BorgQueen (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen and Theleekycauldron: The presumed copyright holder has decided not to release Pizza John to CC. So that leaves one other option for this being a non-copyrighted work: Is the "Pizza John" design adequately transformative from a screenshot from this video by John Green (around 3:56) as detailed by this video from Hank Green (around 1:40) to entail a new copyright? Or is it derivative enough such that the blanket CC release of all Vlogbrothers videos by the Green brothers covers Pizza John? If it is derivative, then the only hitch is that the video is not tagged as Creative Commons due to technical limitations, but they have stated that all Vlogbrothers videos are CC. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised that he declined. Why would he allow the commercial use of the design just for a 24-hour (or shorter) exposure on Wikipedia Main Page... We'll probably have to feature the hook without any pic. BorgQueen (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen and Theleekycauldron: So, apart from the picture, are the hooks still good to go? Oltrepier (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
good to go without the image, although the one in the infobox is available and could be used if a DYK promoter chooses to do so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


"Rapid"[edit]

@GuardianH: Just wanted to clarify this edit. The GA Version has "rapid" in it. Did you intend to change it to not match the GA version? Cerebral726 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. What the sum should have said is something completely different - "rise to fame is fine without 'rapid'". The original editsum was overruled since for some reason the system auto-filled in that one (because of hovering the cursor over it briefly). GuardianH (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. After looking at the sources, the "rapid" aspect of his rise to fame is mentioned often, especially within the context of his 2012-2016 era when he shifted the YA market: WaPo describes quick timeline and how it left Green "reeling, NYT discusses "Sudden fame". The subject of that statement is his impact on YA literature which was a very "rapid" change. Since it was part of the GA and I believe it is a critical part of that opening line, I think it should be restored. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WaPo and NYT - I no longer have any issue with including it again. GuardianH (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Urist vs Sarah Green in infobox[edit]

The infobox on this article deliberately shows Green's spouse's name as "Sarah Urist" rather than "Sarah Urist Green" which is the title of her article. Shouldn't her surname be shown as Green in the infobox since she changed it when they were married? Tagging @Cerebral726, who often edits here. Penguin314 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct. I thought it was the standard to use maiden name, but per Template:Infobox person, the spouse parameter should Use article title (if linking) or common name. Making that change. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories