Talk:Honor Harrington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Novels (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

April 2010[edit]

Shouldn't the article also mention that the opponents always find some way to mess up and grant victory to the Manticore (Honor's) side? While I enjoyed reading the many books in the series, they do have this "inexorable" feel to them that Honor and Manticore must win, so if the article is to be fair, it should mention something about that aspect. The Wikipedia articles about this series should be written from a neutral perspective and NOT from a loving fans' perspective.AnimeJanai (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the comment somewhat disingenous. Honor Harrington is the hero of the novels, so naturally she (and her side) are portrayed in a positive light. Should the Harry Potter articles mention that they are written so as to portray Harry's side as better than the other side, or that they have a feeling that he will win in the end? The very fact that Honor is the hero is already telling you this. Magidin (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Honor and Manticore don't always win. They have both suffered many great losses. And Magidin is right on the hero point: Heroes are usually the ones who win in the end. Besides, we haven't read the end of the serices, so we don't really know how "inexorable" a positive outcome for Honor or Manticore is. - BilCat (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with BilCat. Also, not all of the opponents mess up; in particular, the "good Havenites" tend to be excellent commanders but fall into Manties new technological advantages. Lastly, do note that there are occasional battles Manticore loses. All that said, yes, Honor usually wins - but isn't this what we expect from a protagonist? Still, if anybody has a suggestion how to clarify this in the article/lead, go ahead and try it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we can not follow your suggestion because of Wikipedia's original research policies. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A valid point. But then... how many reliable sources are there for any HH articles? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This is more about the fact that direct literary analysis constitutes original research. We are not supposed to include material that is original on the grounds that we cannot find it in a verifiable source. If it cannot be found in a reliable/verifiable source, then it cannot be included. In the case of fiction, as here, original literary analysis is one of the things that must be guarded against. Magidin (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
To Piotrus. That is correct, but at least those are simple plot elements that are straightforward in the book, and do not involve original research. Which I think is the same point made by Magidin. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be more acceptable to cite Honorverse wiki rather then the primary source books? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it. Wiki's are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers[edit]

There are some major spoilers for At All Costs in the text. Granted, this is in the spoiler section, but it's a lot more accessible, and easy for somebody to be accidentally spoiled (it's justifiable to post spoiler warnings for say Ashes of Victory due to the nature of the series) than in the 'snerkers only' forum on Baen's Bar which is the only other place I've seen that information online.

Just the first words in the text : "Honor Stephanie Alexander-Harrington" spoils the fact that she becomes White Haven's wife. I wish I didn't read that, since I'm just about to start "Echoes of Honor" ! Heemphil (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's Spoiler policy and the Wikipedia manual of style for fiction. It expliciltly states: Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted or omitted, as doing so directly contradicts the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy.
Wikipedia is not a fan page. In short, Wikipedia contains spoiler, live with it. Magidin (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Spoilers may well be part of the psuedo-academic remit of WP. Suppose - as I have - a newer reader comes looking for non plot-specific information (in this instance the order of titles). It is unhelpful - almost deliberately careless - to reveal, without warning, in the earliest sentences of the article summary significant details from books well into the run of books (in this case injuries sustained during the series making Honor comparable with a certain historic figure). Firstly this is detail not appropriate to the initial section of the article and, further, adds little value to that summary. Spoilers may be deemed acceptable, but there's still a right way to go about it whilst managing to respect the fresh reader. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Again: Wikipedia's policies and manual of style explicitly that spoilers should not, under any circumstance, be deleted or omitted. There are general Wikipedia-wide content disclaimers. The order of the books is not an issue of the Honor Harrington page, but of the general Honorverse page, which, as it happens, does not contain the "spoilers". Wikipedia is not a fan page, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Magidin (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Cleanup?[edit]

I have recently started reading this series, so I have limited understanding of this topic. It seems that this article could use some cleanup. The intro is very long, with what appears to be OR, but maybe just lack of citations.

There doesn't seem to be much activity lately, but I just wanted to check before I start making changes. If someone has strong feelings about the article, let me know. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 16:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You have my blessing, for what it is worth :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's see. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Guys, I don't do reverts, but any article with a long running set of complaint tags I'd maintain would have me be ashamed to be associated with it. One jumped up self-important rules mechanic complained for me fixing the lead so the lay reader had an this universe anchor point, so someone maintaining these articles should reincorporate my prose. It was pretty much just what was needed to set up the rest of the pseudo-biography in out universe style. see this diff; See this diff for all his anal mumbo-jumbo. With people like that, it's a wonder anyone ever tries to improve things here. // FrankB 20:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you did not understand and continue to both engage in unwarranted personal attacks, and in false statements and misrepresentations, I will simply note that not only did I thank you for your work and explicitly said the stuff you added would belong elsewhere in the article, my main point was that the banner you removed (with an edit summary that engaged in incorrect personal attacks) included more than one problem and even by your lights you had only addressed one of them. Magidin (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "Overly long intro" comment, since it is much shorter than it was.

There are still issues with the article - too much detail and an in-world slant. As I said before, I have recently discovered this series, so I don't know a lot about it, so I am hesitant about doing any major revisions.

Perhaps much of the text can be moved to articles about the individual books or topics (e.g., Treecats)? I think the article could also be improved by more citations. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 05:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A treecats article used to exist, I think, until it was deleted. The reason is that in articles fiction, many fictional elements are not in and of themselves notable, and therefore we can not have articles about them. As a result, as main series' article usually includes these subjects. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could create a main article about the series, and include some of these sections there. This article could then be listed under the "See Also" label.
I would love to help with cleanup, except for two (at least) reasons:
  • I am only familiar with the first few books. (I am currently in "In Enemy Hands")
  • The article appears to have a lot of spoilers. Just glancing through the article, I have already learned some things that I wish I could forget. :-(
Once a new (spoiler free) article is created, I would be glad to edit and add sections. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 05:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles contain spoilers, and should contain spoilers. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
As noted above under the Spoilers heading, Wikipedia's policies and manual of styles explicitly address the issue of spoilers, and the consensus is that there is no issue: in other words, spoilers should not be purposely avoided, and they should not be explicitly marked. Caveat lector ("reader, beware") I guess. As for a main article on the series, I believe that's the function of the Honorverse page. Magidin (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That is fine, but I still don't want to read any article containing spoilers if I am still reading the series. As a result, I will not be contributing to this article until I am done reading, even though I feel that the article could use some major trimming and clean up. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

lovers/husbands/family/kids[edit]

I will love to have this info here, after all, it is part of her life too :). and you can add some info from later books to spoiler opened tab :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.102.84.189 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Broken reference link keeps getting added[edit]

Twice now I deleted an addition of an "archive link" in the Other media section. It's now been added a third time. It is being added by an anonymous editor using different URLs, with the comment "fixed ref". Following the link leads to an error message saying "Four Oh! Four Snap! Page not found". There is no possibility of communicating with the anonymous editor, and I would not get to the 3 revert rule if I try to delete it again. It's a broken link, it needs to be deleted, and the anonymous editor needs to stop adding it. Magidin (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This? Seems to work for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
this does not, which is linked to under "the original". I thought this is what was being added. Magidin (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)