Talk:David Langford

Wikipedia entry

I now know that one shouldn't edit one's own Wikipedia entry (mea culpa: I made several small corrections before realizing this). The bit about the 1993 Encyclopedia of SF is slightly misleading. I didn't in fact write any articles for this book. My contributions consisted of technical support (which here means "dealing with John Clute's computer problems") and writing detailed notes on the draft text, as received on 5.25" disks. John Clute was kind enough to add my initials to the credits of a couple of entries where he quoted my input.

On the other hand, I was a Contributing Editor of the Clute/Grant Encyclopedia of Fantasy and wrote some 80,000 words of entries for this book.

Ansible Information continues in a very small way, but Christopher Priest is now a sleeping partner; I do all the day-to-day work myself.

The first fanzine of mine to receive a Hugo nomination, Twll-Ddu, isn't mentioned. Some extracts are indexed on line at http://ansible.co.uk/bibfnz.html#td

--David Langford http://ansible.co.uk/

It's fine for someone to correct errors in an article about them; it's more of a prohibition against starting an article about yourself, or removing (or spinning) information that you might not want there. Since your doing neither, nobody will mind. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more. --Bob Mellish 20:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! One doesn't want to, er, make a Stanek of oneself.... --David Langford

Snow Crash?

Why is there a cross-reference link to Snow Crash? Langford isn't mentioned there. I'm a fan both of Langford and of Stephenson, but I don't see any notable connection between the two. Kestenbaum 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, to answer my own question, maybe it's about the connection between Langford's basilisk (clouding the mind, so to speak) and the fate of characters in Stephenson's novel who suffer a "snow crash". Perhaps this needs to be more explicit? Kestenbaum 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Spot on. I've attempted to expand that a bit. Blufive 11:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good -- thanks. Kestenbaum 14:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Langford references in other's fiction

Snow Crash is granted an explicit mention, but the novel(s) of Ken MacLeod, Greg Egan and Charles Stross that reference Langford are not named. I'm particularly keen to know which Egan novel it is. -- Jon Dowland 15:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• In Permutation City, a "Langford mind-erasing basilisk" is mentioned (as a joke). For MacLeod, I think it's The Cassini Division, and the Stross I can't remember, but I'd guess it's either The Atrocity Archive or The Concrete Jungle. --Bob Mellish 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Cassini Division repeatedly mentions "the old legend" of the Langford hack - don't think it occurs elsewhere in that series. Shimgray | talk | 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• • The Stross reference is in his Asimov's story "Router", incorporated into Accelerando. --DeafMan 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Periodicals you could subscribe to in the game Frontier: First Encounters (reproduced here) made reference to a deadly "Langford Basilisk" fractal. Shiroi Hane (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Amstrad PCW

I'm not sure whether this is notable enough to go in the article, but for some years Langford wrote a column for the generally interesting British Amstrad PCW users' magazine, 8000 Plus, which later on changed its name to PCW Plus and became generally boring. These, plus some later ones for a different mag, are online at the Ansible site. Also, AnsibleIndex was reasonably (code for "most people knew about it, but I don't know how many actually bought it") popular on the PCW. Loganberry (Talk) 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Have now inserted a note on these columns and those for Apricot File. --DeafMan 16:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas for possible changes

Would it be a good idea to split off a personal background section from the introduction? We could insert an explicit mention of Dave's hearing difficulties rather than leaving it in the subtext. Maybe a mention of marriage and education at Brasenose, too.

I would also be inclined to include "editor" in the opening sentence and mention lower down the Sladek and Masson collections and role in the third edition of the encylopaedia and possibly sub-editing role for Terry P. Peter cohen 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle name?

Just a minor thing, but I notice his Encyclopedia of Fantasy articles are signed "DRL". Anyone know what the R stands for? Daibhid C 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Rowland. --DeafMan 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything else to add or errors to correct?

I've done an update seeking to incorporate all the issues discussed above. Please let me know if I've missed anything. I'm particularly interested in any errors that DeafMan may spot. -- Peter cohen 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Seems fine to me. I've put in a link to Ansible E-ditions, since this is now mentioned, and added a note on the Maps collection (which I trust and hope is sufficiently notable). --DeafMan 09:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Your changes sound legitimate to this Wiki novice. --Peter cohen 10:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ansible size

I've recently added information on Ansible as part of my hack at the article. I have at the back of my mind that it used to be larger than one sheet of A4. Could User:DeafMan confirm how frequently this happened or correct the article as appropriate, please?

I shall also be changing the reference to the newsletter at the Ansible page to a more appropriate advisory link to here.--Peter cohen 11:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• All issues to #50 (August 1987) were UK quarto size, 10" x 8", and had multiple pages. The schedule back then was never really monthly. Perhaps it would be easiest to link to the first-series index at [1], which shows how the frequency declined -- though issues got longer, from a typical 4pp duplicated/mimeo at the start to as much as 10pp litho with 50% photo-reduction in the final year. All issues from #51 (October 1991) have indeed been one sheet of A4, monthly. But maybe this level of detail belongs in a separate "Ansible (fanzine)" or "Ansible (newsletter)" entry? --DeafMan 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I've adjusted the article in line with your information. I'm a WP:Notability conservative and would rather remove most of the fanzine articles than add another one.

I think this article is moving towards being a solid B-class. Now what we need is proper referencing.--Peter cohen 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I've been somewhat harsh on WP:Notability but to demonstrate that Ansible meets the requirement would require putting together evidence of its use as a source by mainstream newspapers. Then its chief interest to a general reader would probably be how it is used by SF professionals for communication with the public and also for obituaries and tributes. Unfortunately, this looks like primary research to me. Something link Foundation would need to publish an article on the use of semi-prozines and then Wikipedia could reference it. As for most of the other fanzines, I doubt that they are wikinotable.--Peter cohen 16:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the community which produces publications like Ansible. The purpose of Ansible, like most of what science fiction fandom does, is not to provide services to the "SF professionals"; indeed, the pro/fan distinction is deeply deprecated in that community. Most of the fanzines with articles in Wikipedia are Hugo nominees and/or winners, or are venues in which Hugo nominees and winners were published. The fanzines are at the core of the history of science fiction as a literature; excessive deletionism would lead to an undue emphasis on those portions of science fiction culture which appear (grossly distorted, as a rule) in "mundane" publications. --Orange Mike 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I've been in fandom for over half my life, thank you, and know quite a few of the editors of zines with articles here. I even like some of them. However, the values that fen attach to things are not the same as the values that define the contents of a standard encyclopaedia. I and other fen might think of John Brunner as a bore, Larry Niven as arrogant and Jack Chalker as a good guy to chat with. However, that does not mean that these thoughts are encyclopaedic and should be recorded in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should record the opinions on those people in WP:RS which will result in the praise being distributed rather differently. The typical votes for the fan Hugos are in low three figures. They record the views of a few hobbyists. Amateur sports leagues may receive approaching that number of votes for their player of the season awards. This does not mean that the winners are notable. In the past I've voted for deletions to do with articles on Magic players. These are what contribute to Wikipedia's image as a nerd's paradise. How people can argue for inclusions of this sort of stuff when we lack articles on The Testament of Cresseid let alone much of the stuff that attracts the attention of WP:Bias, I don't know.--Peter cohen 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW note that I said "its chief interest to a general reader". I know that fans read Ansible for the gossip and for convention listings. And from the pre-hiatus Ansible, I remember Dave's publication of Nick Lowe's speeches. Which brings up another point. Here we have a senior academic, Reader at a respected university, not to mention film reviewer for a magazine and he hasn't got an article in Wikipedia.--Peter cohen 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you'd argue that the entries for the Hugo-winning fanzines Emerald City, File 770, Mimosa and Plokta should all be deleted? Just curious.... --DeafMan 10:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unless people demonstrate WP:Notability. It's fairly easy to come up with evidence that the Hugos themselves are notable, [[2]], for example. But it needs to be demonstrated for the fanzines. [3] has some thoughts on Wikipedia editors' common lack of appropriate prioritisation with which I agree.--Peter cohen 11:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia approaches its 2 millionth article, I've never been convinced about notability arguments. The distribution of articles reflects the interests of the contributors, and if they happen to be geeky, that serves the needs of the people who use the service too. I've never felt that evidence should be provided for facts that aren't controversial. I'd be unhappy deleting other people's work merely because it didn't reflect my interests. I'd let Wikipedia be a broad church. Vicarage 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We nerds and geeks may be a big part of Wikipedia's audience, but there are other readers too. Only yesterday, I had the radio on during the Simon Mayo programme where an actor appearing in The Bacchae was being interviewed. Mayo admitted to not knowing much about Dionysus and to looking some more up about him during the news report. What he said he had learnt was strongly suggestive of his having used Wikipedia, or else a copy-cat site. I would be happy for wikipedia to cover fanzine and collectible card game cards, if it also had articles on important academics and similar depth of coverage on medieval literature. My restructuring of the article about Dave and adding in coverage of the full range of his bibliography and of Ansible wouldn't have happened if I wasn't an active fan and didn't regard him as a good guy. But I'm still stopping short of covering Twll-Ddu and Drilkjis. Okay, not currently haing copies of either is a factor, but working on obscure operas such as Blond Eckbert, Die Feen and Der Prinz von Homburg plus those on my to do list on my user page is certainly higher up my priority list than any fanzine and I think should also be higher up wikipedia's as a whole.--Peter cohen 12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If any editor feels that an article requires creation or expansion then they should be bold and create or expand it. I don't understand using the lack of certain articles as a rationale for limiting or eliminating others. There's no page limit or storage worry so an article about a fanzine doesn't crowd out an article on opera or medieval literature. - Dravecky 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

With all public domain projects, people scratch their personal itches. It does no harm suggesting the holes in the database, but some Wikipedians view notability as an excuse to delete the work of others, which seems rather petty to me. Vicarage 18:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Couple of more fact checks

Per the wiki conventions, I've moved birthplace down to the body of the article and have taken a leap of faith that Dave grew up there. Is this correct? I've also noticed the description as British, not Welsh. Dave, is that your preferred designation?--Peter cohen 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes re Newport. Not much bothered about British/Welsh -- I tend to oscillate. --DeafMan 10:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I've just been through your biblio and added the books with large press publishers to the article. I've realised I don't know what the fannish Chris Morgan does for a living. I assume he is the person who co wrote the disasters book with you. Am I right that he is none of these Chris Morgans? --Peter cohen 12:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem more logical to include the futurological The Science in Science Fiction (1982 with Peter Nicholls and Brian Stableford, edited by Nicholls), in which I have a one-third share, than Micromania, which I merely adapted for the British market. (And updated further for the paperback.) "Our" Chris Morgan has no Wikipedia entry, although I suppose he could merit a brief one since he also wrote two solo books of interest -- see 1993 Encyclopedia of SF entry. Currently, according to recent email, he teaches adult education classes in writing. --DeafMan 10:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've adjusted the inclusion of books as suggested. I'm sure that Harlan will be pleased by there being one fewer reference to Platt. On the other book, I was misled by PN being the only contributor to appear on the cover scan. As for our CM, I don't actually have the '93 Encyclopedia. Maybe someone who has it can add him.--Peter cohen 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, Peter Nicholls had an uncanny ability to get sole cover credit for joint projects, including the 1979 first edition of the Encyclopedia of SF. Would you like me to email you Chris Morgan's entry? I'd write him up myself, but am unfamiliar with the process of sorting out disambiguation. --DeafMan 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My MPhil/PhD supervisors won't be happy if you do given the relative time I spend here and on my real work. I think the three steps are

• create the new entry under some name such as Chris Morgan (science fiction)
• create a link from your article where Chris's name is mentioned. You need to put Chris Morgan (science fiction)|Chris Morgan in the double square link brackets.
• Go to the disambiguation page Chris Morgan and add in our Chris as an alternative place to go at the bottom of the list.
• If you're really enthusiastic, press What links here on the disambiguation page to see whether there are any mentions of our Chris to redirect to the new page.

I don't actually know whether there is a standard convention on entry name for fans who write a bit. WP:SF might have the answer. --Peter cohen 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Convention Guest

At present the reference to Microcon looks a bit strange without other guest appearances mentioned. FOr example, Worldcon is mentioned only in the categories.

Is a full list of appearances available from which a paragraph can be constructed? And dies anyone know whether mentioning guest appearances is a frequent practice with Wikipedia skiffy-related articles in general?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I spotted that the other day -- presumably added by the Microcon people -- and was half inclined simply to delete it rather than indulge in the tedious vanity of listing every GoH appearance. Sticking to conventions that have Wikipedia entries, I've also been a GoH at Boskone (convention), Eastercon twice, Finncon, Minicon (noted in List of past Minicons), Novacon, Orycon twice, and Worldcon (noted in List of Worldcons). --DeafMan (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at pages such as Greg Pickersgill and Mike Glyer, guest of honour status does sometimes get a mention in articles. However on others such as those on Forry Ackermann and the Hielsen Haydens, there is no mention. I haven't spotted oens that go into huge detail.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, having constructed the list above I'm bunging it in, since the solitary Microcon reference is jarring. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (The P&TNH entries actually list every Hugo nomination, which would be a bit much here.) Maybe some vanity-hunter will promptly take it out again! --DeafMan (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm prepared to do one revert to re-instate it if that happens but not to get into a prolonged edit war. The key thing was to get rid of the Microcon sore thumb. A sore hand is fine as is no hand at all. And I had thought that Emerson said "small minds" until you disillusioned me.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Basilisks

In the basilisks section, it is mentioned that a similar concept appeared in a story about vampires. A certain combination of right angles is harmful to vampires in that story. Is that a needlessly obtuse reference to a crucifix? Icons such as the crucifix have been used to ward off evil since time immemorial; in other words, that idea is nothing new and I don't think it relates to the concept of basilisks well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.175.214 (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The "certain combination of right angles" may or may not be a way of straining to craft a secular excuse for vampiric aversion to the Cross, since the religious explanation is not satisfactory to a certain type of secular readership. However, the wording is framed in such a way as to bear a certain resemblance to the Langfordian basilisk. Nonetheless, this may be original research and may need to come out. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea -- as presented in Peter Watts's hard-sf Blindsight -- is that in prehistoric times vampires were highly intelligent non-supernatural predators (on humans), whose nervous system was susceptible to an optical glitch resembling the effects of Langfordian basilisks. As I remember, they would go into epileptic spasms when their visual systems tried to deal with juxtaposed right angles. Inevitably, the rise of civilization and technology led to their extinction. It is of course implied that this is the origin of the "cross harms vampires" belief. --DeafMan (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The basilisks discussion is getting a bit over-laden with examples. Basically, loads of people have used it, probably starting / copied from with A. E. van Vogt's War Against the Rull (1959). Probably that lot should be trimmed William M. Connolley (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

For a long time I've felt that examples from other people's works don't really belong here and should be deported to the useful round-up entry "Motif of harmful sensation". Unfortunately this was deleted for the crime of original research, leaving such material with no obvious Wikipedia home. The new edition-in-progress of the SF Encyclopedia has a BASILISKS theme entry whose first outright sf example comes from 1934.... --DeafMan (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Loosley

The surname is spelt as above -- see http://ansible.co.uk/books/account.html or my SF Encyclopedia entry. Any way to prevent this being "corrected" to Loosely, which has happened at least twice? DeafMan (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Langford. 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/20160201141403/http://www.christopher-priest.co.uk/essays-reviews/contemporaries-portrayed/david-langford/ to http://www.christopher-priest.co.uk/essays-reviews/contemporaries-portrayed/david-langford/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Berryman logical image technique" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Berryman logical image technique has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 16 § Berryman logical image technique until a consensus is reached. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 05:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)