Novels: Sci-fi Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Nitpick

It says that Foundation's Triumph is followed by Forward the Foundation.

In fact, almost every story (except the final one page epilogue of Forward the foundation) is before Foundation's Triumph. It's a closer call placing Forward the foundation, relative to Foundation's Fear and Foundation and Chaos because some of the stories in Forward are in between these two IIRC. Aarontay 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Dors is killed in Forward the Foundation is evidence that at least that part happens after Foundation's Triumph. Dr. Morbius 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you confusing Foundation's triumph with some other book? To refresh your memory Foundation's triumph occurs after Seldon has "tricked" Chen into sending his foundationers into exile, established the second foundation with Wanda at the head and recorded his appearances in the time vault. We used to think that was the end of Seldon but In Foundation's triumph we learn He then goes on his final adventure. Obviously Dor is already "dead" at that point. so the fact that Dors is killed in Forward the foundation doesn't mean it is after Foundation's triumph! Aarontay 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My mistake. In fact Dors is dead at the start of Foundation and Chaos. I don't remember much of the "second trilogy" since I wasn't very happy with it. See my talk page for more about this. Dr. Morbius 20:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FoundationsTriumph.jpg

Image:FoundationsTriumph.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pitty that the Asimov estate allowed it to be published. Robots with erased laws of robotics? And pulp fiction style adventures? On the first one it's clearly stated in a lot of the robot stories that the three laws are the "mathematical foundation" of the positronic brain. The brain cannot exist without the laws. It's hardware not software. You couldn't "delete" those laws. So at least this stuff is completely out of canon. On Foundations Fear: "Hari and Dors experience virtual reality as chimpanzees on planet Panucopia"??? Virtual reality as chimpanzees? "Joan and Voltaire interact with ancient aliens on the Mesh"?? Ancient aliens? It's not exactly against canon, but it's against Asimov's writing style. The description of these books seems to show a cheap pulp fiction ripoff. I have to reserve further judgement without having read those books, but the description presented here seems that this "new trilogy" is just an indecent use of the franchise to make more money. Hardly worth bearing the name of Asimov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.240.38.78 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]