Talk:The Three-Body Problem (novel): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:59, 14 October 2017

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Divided

I mean, this article should be divided into 3 article, as the triology. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 06:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publication Info

Is this available in English? Leekohlbradley (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be published by Tor Books. --14.203.78.186 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errata

"The series is finished in November, 2011", should be "2010". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.139.119 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

The article intro needs to be clearer - is this a novel trilogy? Also, if it is, [[Category:Science fiction novel trilogies]] should be added to the categories and NovelsWikiProject|sf-task-force=yes (enclosed in {{ }} brackets) to this page.

It's the first novel of a trilogy called Earth's past Trilogy(unofficial in English).BeBoy _{♥Have something to say?Honey~~} 01:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general,it can refer to the whole "trilogy" too.BeBoy _{♥Have something to say?Honey~~} 02:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the last book in the trilogy has been published, it has been officially renamed the Three-Body Trilogy, not just referred as such by Chinese readers. Link: <http://tech.163.com/15/0823/19/B1NQAQ8G000915BF.html> (in Chinese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.186.173.193 (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book itself does not directly mention Mao Zedong, but only mentions "Political Bureau"

In the previous version, the synposis stated that "Red Coast" is "under direct mandate from Chairman Mao Zedong". But Mao Zedong is not mentioned at all in the book itself. The book only directly mentioned the term "Political Bureau". This mentioning may vaguely implies the involvement of Mao Zedong; but as a recounting of a imaginary fiction, it would be better to stick to the original text, in my opinion. Greeneese (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character list?

Could we get a list of characters in the first novel? I'm reading the English translation as an audiobook, and I'm having a hard time keeping track of the names of people. --zandperl (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Trilogy

This page's "novels" section includes the other two novels in the trilogy, but this can be confusing, as this novel's name is also the commonly known name for the whole series/trilogy, therefore confusing readers into thinking that this is the page for the whole series/trilogy. Should there be a separate page created just for the series/trilogy, or should this page turn into the page for the series, with an extended section on the first novel? --Zamaster4536 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I've cleaned things up a bit. This article is clearly currently about the first book, as the lead covers only the first book, the infobox covers the first book, and the plot section accurately summarizes the first book. I left the section about the trilogy because right now there's no other place for it, but made it clear that the book that this article is about is the first part of the trilogy. I also removed some duplicate material from that section and moved some publication details specifically about the first novel into the lead. Now that The Dark Forest is published in English it will probably get its own page soon. BTW, I don't know if the name of the trilogy has been definitively established in English. Does anyone know for sure? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your changes, and definitely believe that these changes will clear things up a lot. Regarding the name for the trilogy, so far I do not believe it has an official name. The trilogy is most commonly referred to as the Three-Body Trilogy in China. On Amazon, it is also currently advertised, in the US, as the Three-Body trilogy, seen from the description on Amazon. It is definitely not the official name, but if you are not using it for the title of a new page, Three-Body trilogy should be sufficient for temporary use in order to make things clearer. Technically, the official name for the trilogy is 地球往事, translating roughly into Earth's Past. Zamaster4536 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Bit of the Plotline

Ye didn't talk to her mother and the Red Guards before she sent the reply to the Trisolarans.She taiked to them AFTER she did.May I change it?--T23333 (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be bold and change it. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first section of the Plot section isn't about plot at all, but is a summary of everything you know about the Trisolarians by the end of the book. It seems better to make the plot section describe things in the order the reader learns them, and have a separate section for a synthesis of the details of the Trisolarian system. Ashmoo (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of the Trisolarians, in fact their very existence and name, are intensely (pardon me for the usage) spoileriffic; for this reader, at least, much of the attraction of the book is the mysterious nature of the immersive game Three Body, and knowing what it's about in advance would not have been a favour. Gerald Fnord (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't avoid spoilers, see WP:SPOILER. Sandstein 14:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

209.18.52.52 is attempting to dispute the use of terminology under Plot because it does not exactly match Kenneth Liu's translation of the novel into English. Can he, or anyone else, cite a policy of Wikipedia which states that, with regard to articles concerning non-English novels, if an English translation exists, that the article must use the exact same terminology as that of the English translation? Is this article meant to cover the novel itself (which is in Chinese) or is it obliged to closely conform to the English translation? Until you can get the opinion of a qualified person, do not press your case further.

Trisolaran et al. are the terms used in the English translation. Use of other terms like 'Trisoma' without explanation are extremely confusing to readers. Mindstalk (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I need to agree with the guy above (the IP guy, not Mindstalk, sorry). Discrepant English terminology for non-English works happens everywhere. It is common with classic novels such as Crime and Punishment and Sienckiewicz's Quo Vadis, and animes where more than one official translation exists, such as Detective Conan and Digimon. It is not our idealistic duty to prevent it. Does Kenneth Liu take liberties with his translation? Yes. In fact, underscoring the fact that his translations are quirky is that Mindstalk used the term "Trisolarians" but Kenneth Liu actually says "Trisolarans". Should this Wikipedia article focus on directly describing the original edition by Liu Cixin. Yes, that is its foremost responsibility. The IP guy can be helpful by adding parentheses with the original Chinese phrases next to Trisoma and other names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.121.70.198 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 106.121.70.198. My reasons are:

1. There is no rule barring the use of non-English sources from English Wikipedia. 2. There is no rule that English sources must be preferred over non-English sources. 3. Both the Chinese novel and the English translation are considered sources. 4. Since the article is about the Chinese novel, the latter should take precedence as a source.

Article Title Change

Since "the three body problem" is a classic problem in physics (and is the physics problem for which the book is named), I suggest that the title of this article should be changed to The Three-Body Problem (novel). Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 13:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Three-Body Problem → The Three-Body Problem (novel) – Current name, "The Three-Body Problem" is the name of a classic problem in physics. The move would make it clear that this page refers to the novel, not the physics problem. This naming is consistent with naming of other pages. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the three body problem is often capitalized in sources, not having (novel) here is user-unfriendly, and in any case when The Three-Body Problem (film) comes out we're going to have to add (novel) anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support more because of the existence of the upcoming film than for confusion with the math/physics problem. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support; the problem in physics is likely the primary topic by historical importance. bd2412 T 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:DIFFCAPS, the capitalization and definite article is enough. Smurrayinchester 11:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very much improves reader experience by making all the articles easier to find for those searching for them. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.