Talk:Tom Swift

Don't know why some of the good Tom Swift site links were removed. There are no TS sites linked anymore. Several other pages for juvenile series have anywhere from 1 to 10 related site linked. Have put them back. --Emb021 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

:ACTUALLY THE ONE MAIN TOM SIWFT LINK IS IT APPEARS RUN BY EGO MINDED PERSON. BETTER TO LEACE TOM SWIFT TO INDIVIDUALS INSTEAD OF HAVING A TOM SWIFT GROUP LINK! —Preceding unsigned SHOUTED comment added by 66.74.239.236 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

::Various Tom Swift sites can be found via Google, and some include further links and resources.68.164.236.26 (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see there have been a LOT of edit wars about this article in the past, so I thought that before making important changes, I would post about those changes.

• First, the article right now has no pictures. I will see about uploading some. I noticed another poster specifically wished there were pictures of the Graham Kaye covers, so I'll try to get one of those first.
• Next, the article right now (minus a reference I just added) has only five references. I know we can do better.
• Third, we've got a nicely titled section about "Modern influence and references", but it's been tagged as basically a trivia section, which ... it basically is. I think we can weave the info into the article rather than having it be a bunch of disconnected info.
• Fourth, the lists of characters and so on for each series are of an unciteable nature. Also, some of them violate Wikipolicy on neutral point of view; for example, the section on Rad Sampson mentions that he "Provides comic relief in a very dated (Minstrel show) manner considered unacceptable today" but then hastens to add that this has "a long pedigree in fiction of this type, including that of Verne" which is pretty clearly someone's way of saying, PC hippies don't like minstrel shows but they were good enough for grammy and gramps! This is silly and offensive, and more importantly - back to my original point - a violation of wikipolicy, not only re NPOV, but also original research. One last thing: these lists make the article long and are not about "Tom Swift" as a whole, but about specific series; I suggest setting up separate pages for each series, sort of the same way that Nancy Drew has a main article for the various Drew series and then separate pages for different series) that give titles, detailed character info, pictures, maybe info on foreign editions, and info on formatting. That way the main entry on TS can focus on TS as a whole. --This last suggestion is only a suggestion for now, but the first three points I'm just gonna go ahead and change. Ricardiana (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Great article on Tom Swift! TGhe yeera 2010 marks the 100th anniversay of the Edward Strameyer cretaed TOM SWIFT series(Tom Swift and his Motorcycle "1910. As someone else mentioned in discussion Some Tom Swift groups have Ego minded individuals more trying to promote them then the FUN and insprieing(to young america!) Tom Swift books! (Edson Andre') dcidam480921stcent.Andreisme (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've scanned a cover of Tom Swift and His Motorcycle from 1910, which I'm having someone else clean up. I thought it would be nice to have one of the originals. It helps convey the changes in how the book was produced (it is happily in the public domain as well!). I'll post it here as soon as it is done. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks, Awadewit! I did have a not-so-good pic of Motorcycle on there, but I wasn't sure about the copyright status as Applewood Books reprinted these. The cover on there now is from the original series, too, but you're right, it would be nice to have the first book cover on there. Thanks for doing this! Ricardiana (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:::File:TomSwiftMotorcycleSmallCropped.jpg - Here's the link to the image. A friend is working on sprucing it up, but this should do for now. Put it wherever you like! Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Hi, Awadewit - many thanks! I will try to add this soon - I am trying to really crack down on my dissertation, so if it takes me a little while, that's why. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody, please note: your personal opinion about racism in the early Tom Swift books doesn't matter. If you think that minstrel-show "comedy" is just fine, there's nothing I can do about it. If you want your opinion to be in the article, though, you have to do one thing: find a reliable source that agrees with you. Please, no more edits to the article saying stuff like "racist by today's standards" blah blah, implying that it's just fine really except for all this modern political correctness. Find a source ~ and personal web pages and blogs don't count. Ricardiana (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one if someone wants to update it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/30/history-of-word-taser-comes-from-century-old-racist-science-fiction-novel

The Guardian is far-left and is thus not a reliable source for this because they are prone to label anything they don't like as "racist," "sexist," etc. regardless of the actual meaning of those terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.203.10.94 (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

For one thing, quotations should be indicated as such. The text was not.

:There was a quotation mark at the end, and a footnote. That should have been a clue. Ricardiana (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For another, there's no direct indication of which source the purported quote was from; and neither of the two possible sources is accessible online.

:Wrong again. Look at the footnote. It's footnote number 8, at the end of the paragraph, to an essay by Francis Molson. No, it's not available online. Try your local library. Ricardiana (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that this must be a direct quote by someone else, rather than an editor-generated summary? Wikipedia does not exist merely to copy text from other sources and paste it here. 192.31.106.34 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:# First of all, whether you "need" a direct quotation (not quote) by someone else or not, IF you do have a direct, cited quotation you must preserve the author's words - not change them to what you wish they'd said.

:# Second, this article is up for Good Article status and I'd appreciate it if you let the reviewer decide if there are too many direct quotations or not.

:# And finally, yes, there is a reason to have a direct quotation regarding the alleged racism of the series - it's to avoid WP:OR. On controversial matters you don't get to decide. You can only report what the sources say. I just wrote the article on The Hardy Boys - some sources say the early books are racist; some sources say they're pretty enlightened for their time. I reported all those viewpoints. Published, reliable sources on Tom Swift all say that the early books were racist. So that's that. If you want your point of view to be represented - publish something. In that sense, Wikipedia does exist only to parrot other sources. Ricardiana (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say: good job, Mr. Editor. Article looks great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.133.83 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

:Hey, thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, looks like I won after all. gg peer review! 192.91.173.42 (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't touched this page in months, but it is still on my watchlist. So consider this an uninvolved opinion agreeing with the IP's removal of the link. It adds nothing of value to the article. Unless the text of the external link can be incorporated and cited, it should be removed. I think there is a fair bit of gaming going on here, too, if I must be honest. Maybe the letter of the law of 3RR wasn't violated, but the spirit was. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The external link to the Duntemann site should be removed.

It contributes nothing to the subject and, while enjoyable, is merely one man's wistful memories. Furthermore, it can be readily found on Google.

There are many Tom Swift site which actually provide additional information which are NOT listed here (tomswift.bobfinnan.com, www.tomswift.info) among others.

Why add one pretty much useless link and ignore sites that provide more information?

If no valid reason can be given for retaining the Duntemann link, I will remove it.

71.190.101.163 (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

::And now, given that two opinions have been voiced for the removal of the link, it is up to those who wish to keep that link to participate here. Using edit summaries to say "bring it to the talk page" without those parties doing so is not an example of collaborative effort. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I can support removing the link, although I think it can be considered to "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" and to "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" per WP:EL. My main concern was that it was initially removed along with categories, and then subsequently removed saying simply that this is not Google (the same can be said for all external links on Wikipedia). I reviewed the other links noted by the anonymous editor and I would opine that as long as they are not too commercial and add value (i.e., not just links or selling items) they could be added. I appreciate the more in depth discussion here rather than edit summaries. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

::::I see the link has now been removed. It probably would have been nice to allow Nikkimaria some time to comment before removing the link. There really is not a rush on an encyclopedia and editors are not always able to comment quickly. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I won't dispute the removal of that link, but since its removal has left the "External links" section without any external links, I would suggest that those who supported the link's removal find appropriate sites to replace it (sites that comply with WP:EL, of course). I do appreciate, however, that this time the change was discussed and (somewhat) agreed upon here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Personally, I'm not sure why external links are needed. They're a "nice to have", but nothing really required within policy or guidelines. As I said above, if the material could be referenced, that would be a different story. But having one single external link, going to a web site (which, as the IP said, is mostly reminiscences of one author), I think WP:UNDUE is at hand. WP:POV still needs to apply to external links. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::I have no problem with the removal of the link, but the suggestion that it violates WP:Undue and WP:POV is silly. The article exhaustively cites all sources that meet WP:RS; readers were then given an essay for additional reading. This is hardly giving the link undue weight; cited sources are given weight. Nor is it a violation of POV; the article presents multiple POVs, again limited to those available in cited sources. The only way the link could be unfair is if there are sources that don't meet WP:RS but do meet the guidelines on external links; Bob Finnan's site, mentioned above, is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have other suggestions for sites that are allowed, by all means add them, or not, as you wish. Ricardiana (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::: Why would the Finnan site not be allowed? I've looked at the Wiki criteria and find no reason why it should be barred. It does contain links for sale items but that doesn't specifically bar it, especially since it contains a lot of information not contained in the Wiki article. At any rate, I don't see why any "external links" are needed anyway. Just my 2 cents. 71.190.101.163 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I don't really know why it's not allowed. I tried to put in a link and a red warning came up saying any links to that site were banned by Wikipedia policy. Ricardiana (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

:Meh, doesn't really matter what I think. I've put in my two cents. Since this is up (or was) for GA, I'm not in the mood to fight the agenda, so I'm just going to unwatch this and let those who know better than I do whatever is deemed necessary. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

::Archives for this page and especially the "Hardy Boys" page from 2-3 years back refer to issues involving the Bob Finnan sites. The "red warning" mentioned above may have to do with that.

It doesn't look impossible for persons interested in this article to come up with some sort of standard for link inclusion that is both mindful of Wiki rules and allows useful illustration and reference. Sites that sell products/services or require membership raise obvious red flags. I do realize that one has to be cautious. But many Wiki articles have external links that at least appear to enrich their encyclopedic function.

: I agree, outside links can be helpful. Ricardiana (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Today oct 4th 2009 21st Cent Birthdate of Tom Swift Book foiunder Edward Startemeyer the year 2010 marks the 100th anniversary of the first Tom Swift Book Tom Swift and His Motorcycle Happy Birthdfay both! Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Mor, Sn, Oct 4th,2009, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsonbrasil (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Evergreen Review did a comic-strip parody, Frank Fleet and his Electric Sex Machine.

Stan Freberg created a serialized radio ad for Mars, Tom Sweet and his Electric Milky Way Machine.

Although The Venture Bros. is principally a slap at The Hardy Boys, Tom Swift is an obvious target. This needs to be discussed. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

At least one of these invention credits is incorrect. Portable motion picture cameras were in existence long before 1912, including some designed specifically for amateurs. The first truly practical amateur systems were introduced in 1922 and 1923 by Pathe and Kodak, respectively, but they were neither the first portable equipment nor the first for amateurs. There were such even by 1898, (The 17.5mm Birt Acres camera, for example, or the 20mm Mirographe by Reulos and Goudeau in that same year; the Gaumont Chrono de Poche for 15mm film; Jenkins Phantoscope camera of 1912--35mm but designed for school use...and there were more), so that invention credit is wholly incorrect.

It might also be useful to add some information about the publishers. Most copies of the early series that are seen today were printed by Grosset & Dunlap, but it has always been my understanding that they were strictly reprinters, and were not first publishers of these books. That might be something to clarify, since I often see them getting that credit. PastReflections (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

During the 1970s and 1980s, when I worked at Waldenbooks and new 'reprint'(?) editions were coming out, I was told that they were updated versions of the previous 1954-71 series.

Has anybody else heard of this or was the person who told me this wrong or misunderstanding how the next series was being done?

If there is any truth to the "updated versions," I think there should be some mention of it. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Swift. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=803059180 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/20071006000042/http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=4448 to http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=4448

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Last hour I completed the update from five series to six; that is, for 2019 to 2022/23. "Six series" have been mentioned in the lead sentence, and 2019 to 2022 mentioned somewhere; but only five series and only to 2007 covered elsewhere in the text.

Now there are two points with explicit reference to the latest volume published (search the text for "March 2022")—the last line before section 3 "Series" and the last line of that section.

• "... and Tom Swift Inventors Academy from 2019 to present—eight volumes as of Depth Perception (March 2022).[15]
• "Through 2022 eight volumes were issued, the latest being #8 Depth Perception (March 2022).[15]

Note 15 cites [http://www.simonandschuster.ca/series/Tom-Swift-Inventors-Academy?intcmp=np_series_link Tom Swift Inventors' Academy (series) at publisher Simon & Schuster]. There is no mention of a next volume, now almost a year after Book #8. That should be monitored. --P64 (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This old FA article suffers from a lot of sourcing issues. Most of the citations aren't formatted properly, for example. the lack of authors, dates of articles, etc. + the usage of unreliable sources such as ref 53, ref 56, and possibly more + there are a lot of unsourced statements and citation needed tags + the depiction of race section is barely standing with that short content in there + the cultural influence section should definitely be expanded in order for the article to meet the current FA standard. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

:Yeah. I’ll work on it soon. Ricardiana (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)