Talk:The Way of Kings

Novels: Fantasy 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 Fantasy task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Jonathanischoice, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 September 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Plot

sigh. If you look at the first draft of this page, you'll see that it was originally the same as the current Plot section. Well, within limits. Perhaps a less detailed world explanation, quote the last paragraph, and link to the forum itself?--Caleballen (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Publication Reviews

Should the usernames of the reviewers be included in the block quotes?--Caleballen (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary since they're just being used as examples, especially if the quotes are properly cited. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I wasn't sure. I wanted to include the reviews, but I didn't want to offend the individuals who created the original posts.--Caleballen (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what was wrong with the Pre-Publication Reviews section of this iteration of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Way_of_Kings&oldid=375671146 . The reason cited is "Remove original research not mentioned in citation. Remove trivia section not covered or referenced in any third party reliable sources." I suppose looking at an amazon page and the user comments on it would be considered original research, and, thus, we must find a third party to look at an amazon page and comments and make a superior, third-party analysis that states: "Users made comments." Otherwise the section is well cited and relevant to the book's history, and if there are no objections by the end of the month I will restore it. 74.60.247.232 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of reviews which could be used

I'm starting a list of reviews of the book which I've found. Some may not be able to be used, but I figure it's better to list them here and not use them than to not know about a review which may be helpful. Feel free to add to the list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elitist Book Reviews

Post-publication additions to the article

I've done a lot of editing on Wikipedia, but mostly minor additions, changes and corrections, and anti-vandalism reversions. I haven't done a lot of real additions to articles as I have done here so I know it needs a lot of work. I'll try to add and revise over the next few days and will work on citations. All here is straight from the book, though not verbatim. Any other editors who want to contribute and help clean up would be appreciated.Caidh (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the citations I have do not have page numbers, just chapter numbers. I don't know if it is needed, but I'm reading from the Kindle edition which has their 'locations' and not actual page numbers.Caidh (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better writing

write a book in another world, sounds like the author is going to seclude himself in another world for writing the book... nice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcides (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The change I just made should make that clearer.Caidh (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A section on stormlight is needed

Please aid me with finding the proper citations (I am listening to the audiobooks)JaredThornbridge (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the chapter number is sufficient. I used just those since page numbers on ebooks (at least the Kindle) aren't consistent.Caidh (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Styles of Combat

I wrote a fairly lengthy section on the styles of combat we see in this book. I invite others to add to this section as they see fit, but please only correct any minor mistakes I made in the original posting (I listened to Way of Kings in audio book format so I might have spelled something wrong). I limited this section to types of combat we see that are fairly unique to WoK. For that matter "Styles of Combat" might not even be the best title for this section, but it will do until a better one comes along.–Maximumcool (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on this is much appreciated Maximumcool, but it is as you said lengthy. It will have to be trimmed down significantly (no more than a paragraph or two perhaps). It may be okay to have it that long on a dedicated wiki for the Stormlight Archive, but the descriptions on the wikipedia page should be brief (and cited).Caidh (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very good section, so a big thank you to Maximumcool. However, I'm also concerned this could be considered original research by other editors and removed. Some effort should be made to reduce its interpretation as original research; adding citations would help that a lot. Spidey104^contribs 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing problem

AWB alerted me to various references in this article having different names but the same content. I would guess that someone has copied references within the article without understanding how named references work. I have added HTML comments so that AWB/bots will not merge the references. Ideally it needs someone with a copy of the book to sort out which chapters are intended. Example:

<ref name="WoK-Chapter 68">
{{cite book|last=Sanderson|first=Brandon|title=The Way of Kings|year=2010|publisher=Tor
|chapter=56<!--or perhaps 68 as the reference name suggests-->}}
</ref>

-- John of Reading (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read Chapter 56 and, while it does seem to mention many of the things referenced, it doesn't carry the examples or explanations that the Chapters actually referenced. It doesn't make sense to have Chapter 56 as the reference, it should be the individual Chapters. Turbolinux999 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I've updated the "chapter=NN" parameter in these five references. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lighteye vs. Lighteyes

This article sometimes uses "lighteye" as a singular and sometimes "lighteyes." In the book "lighteyes" is used both for the singular and plural, so should we change that?

PubliusHadrianus (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PubliusHadrianus - you're right. It should be lighteyes all through, I've fixed it where I found it now. Caidh (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels with New Horizons images of Pluto

Anybody notice that Pluto looks like this world? Just an observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nswartz (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scar on my foot that looks exactly like a map of my hometown. Very handy if I'm lost. --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]