Jump to content

Talk:Honor Harrington: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wrp103 (talk | contribs)
7,574 edits
Line 125: Line 125:


:::: 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. [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 17:16, 14 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. [[User:wrp103|wrp103 (Bill Pringle)]] [[User talk:wrp103|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

== lovers/husbands/family/kids ==

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 :)

Revision as of 16:56, 7 August 2013

two entities inhabiting the same body

Does this have an equivalent is real life? Any historical or present examples? Does this phenomenon have a name? Debresser (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under mexican law, with some strict separation of Church and State, the President cannot be part of religious ceremonies "in the person of his office" (that is, as The President). However, the person who is the president can participate as a private individual.
Also, during the controversies surrounding the awarding of the Longitude Prize, the Prince of Wales offered to testify in favor of Harrison before Parliament. Since he could not do so as the Prince of Wales, he offered to appear before Parliament as one of his lesser titles, in essence becoming the "other person" for legal purposes.
The Roman Emperors, from time to time, did similarly. Magidin (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks. Would this have a name in law? Debresser (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of books?

Is there such a list? I've been trying to avoid spoilers but don't see one. I'd like to know which order to get them in. 87.115.31.184 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; see the article on the Honorverse. Magidin (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe people ought not have to dig into the discussion section in order to find that out. Seriously, is it too hard for somebody who has an investment in these pages to make them easier to navigate for people new to the topic? 108.214.192.16 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Maybe there needs to be a disambiguation link at the top of the page. By typing in the name of the main character in a series of novels, I would expect to at least go to a page on the character that had a prominent disambiguation link at the top of the page. The assumption that a typical Wikipedia user who is not already a fan of a book series is going to search for information on said series by using an esoteric fan-made name ("Honorverse") is ludicrous, and people new to the topic shouldn't have to dig into the meat and bones of the article to find that link. One would think that, this being a fictional character, that entering a search for "Honor Harrington" would first go to an article on the book series, with a disambiguation link for the character under the title on that page (e.g., "Honor Harrington (fictional character)" or whatever).
That being said, this article is a mess. It's excessively long for a fictional character biography. Just browsing over it, and it reeks of fanboy authorship. If I want that, I'll read a wiki dedicated to the subject. Being that I was actually motivated by the unacceptable quality of this article so far as to actually log into my Wikipedia account to leave a comment on the talk page for the article (something I do perhaps twice a year) should speak volumes for how bad this article is to a Wikipedia user who is not an obsessive fan of the Honor Harrington series.
AntarcticFox (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking about a mess. Do you image what a mess articles about fiction would be if we would add a disambiguation note to all the main characters? Debresser (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to fan's musical composition

Resolved

A month ago a new editor Mufoboe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a reference to a musical composition – the Harrington Suite – self-published by the "American composer[,] Matthew Fossa": diff. The editor mufoboe is almost certainly the composer himself. The reference was supported by a link to the composer's personal web site, here.

There is almost nothing available online discussing this composition: Google search. The only relevant hits are Wikipedia mirrors, save for a single page from the Mobile Symphony. That page presents Fossa's (presumably self-authored) biographical sketch, wherein it notes that the Harrington Suite's first (and very likely only) public performance was by a high school wind ensemble — and then, only two of the five movements.

At this point, I don't believe that reference to this composition is warranted in our article. Fan fiction – even orchestrally-composed fan fiction – needs to garner some appreciable third-party recongition before it should be presented in Wikipedia. At the moment (and until evidence of third-party interest is put forward), the reference and external link seem to serve primarily as vehicles to promote the composer, rather than to usefully inform our readers. I have removed the reference, but been reverted twice by Debresser. Third opinions are welcomed and encouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although TenOfAllTrades has convinced me that information about this musical composition is not as important for the article as I originally thought it was, I definitely think he should refrain from making assumptions such as "The editor mufoboe is almost certainly the composer himself". That is ugly lawering. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering? No, just simple observation. When people add content promoting things that have not already been covered in other sources, they are getting their information from somewhere- personal experience is a likely bet. Also note the similarities in usernames. Friday (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment from an uninvolved party. I was informed of this discussion through a post on the Help desk.) The information about the music should be removed. There is no way to know if any of the added information is true, because there is no way to verify it with reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Something a person directly related to a subject says or does should (for the most part) never be taken directly as fact, especially if it is not reported by third-party sources, as is the case here. If the music appears in any third-party sources, then and only then can it be added to the article (assuming the sources are reliable and properly cited, of course.) Xenon54 / talk / 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, personal websites are almost invariably not acceptable reliable sources (see also WP:SELFPUB). It seems to me that this is the case here: the only link is to the personal website of the composer. As such, although "sourced", it is not reliably sourced. As such, the argument put forth in the edit summary about relevance is completely immaterial: this is not reliably sourced information, it should not be there. Magidin (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before editor start spilling more inkt on this... I have undone my revert, because - as I said above - I have been convinced to have been wrong. I still resent making assumptions, though. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think we can not follow your suggestion because of Wikipedia's original research policies. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I doubt it. Wiki's are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Article Cleanup?

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)[reply]

You have my blessing, for what it is worth :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia articles contain spoilers, and should contain spoilers. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

lovers/husbands/family/kids

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 :)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honor_Harrington&oldid=567561625"