Talk:Leigh Brackett

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Screenwriters Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Screenwriters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of screenwriting, screenwriters, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScreenwritersWikipedia:WikiProject ScreenwritersTemplate:WikiProject Screenwritersscreenwriter articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Leaked script denied?

Why is the existence of the leaked ESB script draft by Brackett glossed over by this page as if it's existence is still only a rumor? It is available on several sites all over the net (for example here: [redacted] as a downloadable pdf, other sites feature full transcripts. I can't think of a single official source which has called it a fake. Anyone can read it and see what it contains. Perhaps an update is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.226.76 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is again [redacted]

Sufficient time has passed that it would seem undeniable that the script is real, and public knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.185.126 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to lock this page or submit it to arbitration until the script link issue is resolved? These 166 characters have more entrances and exits than the chorus line in a Fosse musical. I'm not sure that the link is worthy of being included in the text: I would place it in under "external links." On the other hand, I don't know why some jackwagon keeps yanking it out without a word of explanation despite repeated requests. "Empire" is hardly Brackett's defining work and it's annoying to see the constant page edits related to it. It's been going on for months now. Ohioreader (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Could someone please check formatting? Somehow, certain passages are swallowed.

Done... put in a carriage return before the omitted chunks and they start being displayed. It may be a bug in the wiki parser, as I notice the "three apostrophes" for bold wasn't working in the first line either. Malcolm Farmer, Monday, April 15, 2002

How is her first name pronounced? Lay or Lee?

Links to Leigh Brackett Solar System and Eric John Stark in the article should probably be made more obvious, perhaps in a See Also section or as part of a Leigh Brackett category. Shsilver 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire section states that Brackett was awarded a Hugo in 1981, but while Empire clearly did win, I'm not finding any evidence that the award was given to Brackett specifically. Unlike the Nebula script award, the Hugo Dramatic Presentation award is for the work as a whole, as far as I know. Has anyone got a source for this? --Chronodm 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed science fantasy from the introductory list of genres in which Brackett wrote, since it's a subcategory of science fiction. There is a mention of her science fantasy aspect later in the article. I left that in, though I'm not sure it contributes much. Zaslav 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please edit Bibliography to reflect Series of books, as shown in most other Author's pages, many thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.92.162 (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anakin/Darth Vader

"Some have declared that the concept of Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father originated as a story idea proposed by Brackett" What's the source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrguerra (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 August 2006

Link to leaked script

Would anyone who wants the link to the leaked script removed from the article please briefly explain why it should be removed? Is there a claim that the linked page is a copyright violation? It does seem plausible that a "leaked script" would be a copyright violation, so per WP:ELNEVER that link cannot appear at any page on Wikipedia, including this talk page. Would anyone who thinks the leaked script is not a copyright violation please indicate why. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any leaked script hosted at dubious script mirror sites will fall under WP:ELNEVER. There is no way around this. If the copyright is still in force, the script cannot be linked.

For purposes of this article, it should be sufficient to describe the reaction to the script, leaked or not, by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree - the fact it was leaked says that it wasn't officially made available by the copyright owner. On those grounds hosting the leaked document is presumably a copyright violation, (and certainly there is no reason to assume that it is not), and therefore it becomes a contributory copyright violation to link to it on one of those sites. This, of course, doesn't prevent metioning the script in the article. - Bilby (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanations of Wikipedia's policy with regard to blogs as sources and "contributory copyright violation." My frustration with this entry has been that no citations are demanded when the script is dismissed as insignificant, but citations are demanded when any mention is made of the availability of a primary source that might allow researchers to decide for themselves. Originally, there were no links to the leaked script. But then mention of the leaked script was repeatedly deleted for not having a citation. This appears to have been what prompted the links in the first place. I do understand now that these links should not be present in the entry (note that I didn't put them there--although on one occasion I accidentally restored one with a revert). The question is: Can no mention of the leaked script be made until that leak is mentioned in a source deemed more reliable than a blog? This seems limiting, but perhaps fair. I would just ask that other unsourced claims--such as those about the significance of Brackett's script--also be left out of the entry. XpisP (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any problems currently in the article (I did not notice any in a quick read)? There should be no mention of a leaked anything unless a reliable secondary source indicates that the anything has some significance (otherwise, the information is original research (synthesis) where an editor assembles factoids to imply some result not supported by sources. I don't think there will be any problems now that a couple of independent editors are watching the article. I should add that my original message here was intended to be purely neutral—I actually think that linking to a leaked script is a 100% violation of WP:ELNEVER and anyone who adds the link after a warning is likely to be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Influences/Influenced" material from infobox

I noticed while doing some wikignomery on this article that some material in the infobox that may be of significance was effectively hidden because two parameters, "influences" and "influenced", are no longer supported.

The doc for the infobox reasonably suggests that this material be worked into the article prose, but I figure there are others who could do a better job of this than I can, so I'm parking it here for now:

| influences = [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]]
| influenced = [[Ray Bradbury]]<ref>{{Citation | first = Leigh | last = Brackett | title = Sea-Kings of Mars and Otherworldly Stories | publisher = Gollancz | place = London | year = 2005 | page = xii}}.</ref><br>[[Edmond Hamilton]]<br>[[Michael Moorcock]]<ref>{{Citation | first = Michael | last = Moorcock | title = Stark Rides Again}}, introduction to {{Citation | title = The Secret of Sinharat | last = Brackett | series = Planet Stories Library | year = 2007 | page = 9}}</ref><br />[[George Lucas]]

--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]