Talk:Treecat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 image too small. licensing? 2 equivalent to dolphins? and celery 3 Plagiarism? 4 where mentioned 5 added image acceptable?? copyright vio?? 6 recent reversion 7 Future of this article 8 Removal of the famous treecats 9 Treecats on Grayson 10 proposal to restore list of treecats to this article 11 Strange English under 'Society'

[edit] image too small. licensing?

I have removed this image because it is far too small to use. I am aware that many images have been released on the Honorverse CD: I will see what the licensing situation might be. --Phil | Talk 12:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Too small is better then none - now the image has been deleted for being orphaned :< --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] equivalent to dolphins? and celery

The comment about treecats being intelligent as dolphins: is that the actual situation as described by Weber, or what humans (other than adoptees) think about treecats?

As for celery, its properties are general, not just in Sphinx adapted celery (Celery on Grayson, Manticore and Hades has just the same effect.) I note that Sphinx celery was grown in greenhouses, so it wasn't that well adapted.... Malcolm Farmer 00:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weber notes an intelligence rating in an early volume (how determined in the presence of universal intelligent sabotage by the subjects is perhaps one of those 'continuity' problems with a long series) and that rating is related to dolphins. By observation, readers may have different perceptions of course, but such are less authoritative.

Sphinx adapted celery contains <whatever> which is better than any native Sphinx plant's version of it for making that part of the brain work. Ordinary celery, not grown on Sphinx for some unstated reason (a local predator?) doesn't do as well, though they like the taste it seems independently of any boosting effect. That was the distinction I was after here, without getting over detailed. Wanted to leave something to new readers who have despite the warning continued with the article. It's also the reason I didn't mention signing at all, originally. Does this clarify? ww 19:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism?

This article is nearly identical to this webpage: Treecat Biology

Not sure who copied who, need to check versions of the article. Falcorian 07:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Falcorian, If you will consult the history tab for the article, you'll see a long and tortuous history of small and somewhat larger edits which produced this article. I've looked at bio.ms and you are correct they have an almost exact copy. Though why is a little odd as the site is for humans, not imaginary species. Since WP content is copyrighted, and may be used under the terms of the GPDL, the biggest problem I see is that there is no obvious note acknowledging that the article at bio.ms is based (or copied directly more accurately) on WP content. Do please feel free to notify them. ww 19:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion. I probably should have posted it earlier. As a side not, it seems this isn't the only Honor Harrington article copied. However, they do note at that bottom that "The Wikipedia content used on this page is licensed under GFDL", not sure if that is new, or simply never noticed. Falcorian 01:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] where mentioned

Dianchect has been added at the human name for the first treecat adopted by a Manicoran Royal. My memory has been getting spotty of late, so it may be that I've forgotten, but where is the name mentioned in the texts? ww 20:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice no one bothered to enlighten me, but I blundered across the mention. Sigh... Question withdrawn. ww 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] added image acceptable?? copyright vio??

The new image (from a book cover, I think) added in late Dec '05 is likely copyrighted. Do we have permission to use it here? Consider the WP policy for image sourcing before assuming we can, please. Thnx. ww 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Which image would that be? We now have a new image, thx to David Mattingly :) Of course it would be great if we could add some more, like my favourite ChoW by Carol Heyer.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent reversion

I have rolled back a reversion (via popups) as it makes no sense. Other my excrable typing and so mispellings, the was nothing out of line in the sentence reverted. As the reverter has had his talk page protected, I am asking here for an explantion of the seemingly inexplicable. ww 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future of this article

As with any article, the next steps should be WP:GA, WP:PR and WP:FAC. Two issues need to be addressed first: references (preferably inline citations) and more pictures (fair use most likely although maybe some fanartist will draw something for Wiki?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If we are really to treat this as a verifiable (ie, inline citations) fact checked article, we would seem to have missed the point. I think, anyway. This is in some sense a kind of literary appreciation/review, and one doesn't weigh such down with scholarly apparatus. Thoughts? ww 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's remember WP:V. Fancruft has no place on Wikipedia, but the encyclopedic, verifiable description of the fictional 'treecat' species does. For this article to confirm to the second, useful type, we need references.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the famous treecats

I am reluctant to suggest that their removal from this list is ill-advised, but... A standalone list article is, I'm afraid uninteresting is this case, as there are too few items, err treecats. And the loss of this not so long list from the article forces readers to go traipsing off into the distance to learn more. A cognitive dissonance any proper treecat would detect immediately and start bleeking or chittering about to show an opinion on human foolishness. If not necessary, why bother to impose even this much overhead? I vote for keeping the list here. ww 08:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treecats on Grayson

The article makes one or two oblique references to the Treecats living on Grayson. First is a mention of Samantha and Nimitz raising their kittens off-Sphinx with the help of Honor Harrington, and then there is a mention of the Harrington Treecats baseball team on Grayson. Should a paragraph be added somewhere about the Treecats that moved to Grayson? (Which would consist of Nimitz, Samantha, Nimitz's kittens, and the members of Nimitz's clan who went along to help care for the young).--Raguleader 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was such mention, deliberately so to avoid giving away everything, as part of the famous treecats section. It's been moved into a separate list article. I think in an excess of listishness. I protested (see above) but received no comment in return. I'm still at a loss as to how to manage the resulting truncation. Suggestions? ww 11:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as spoilers go, we could put in a spoiler tag (since a very large part of the article already contains spoilers anyhow) and then not worry about it. It wouldn't need to be an in-depth detail, just mention that due to concerns over the escalating war between Manticore and Haven, some of the Treecats have decided to form colonies off-world , and the first such colony exists on Grayson, in Harrington Steading.--Raguleader 16:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposal to restore list of treecats to this article

There was a proposal to merge this artcile into List of Honorverse Characters (see Talk there). This proposal suggests restoration of this list to the original source of this list, here. There were some comments that the Treecat was 'too long'. There are no strict limits to article lengths on WP, and these entries really belong at treecat, from whence they were removed. ww 22:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I second the notion that the list of famous treecats belongs in this article. 144.136.56.5 15:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    - To keep the user friendliness of this article for people who may not be rabid treecat fans, 
      i.e. people who have not read the books much I think that this list should remain separate, 
      it is easily accessable for those who are interested and it's presence in the main article 
      might turn people who were refered to the article because someone made a treecat reference 
      and sent the confused person here for background info.

There's a problem either way. The article itself contains spoilers, though I've tried to keep them from being too blatant and thus make the books pointless in some sense. The list of treecats wouldn't add much to that. You suggest it shouldn't be added, but your arguement against doing so is unclear. Can you clarify? ww 20:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange English under 'Society'

The article states: "... humans aren't small enough to follow exploratory treecat kitten where they are wont to wend, nor to get them out of the scrapes to which they are prone once they have went". One notes that "went" is the past tense of "go", and that the usual past tense of "wend" is "wended". For example: "We wended our weary way through the weekend". 144.136.56.5 15:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted in a <! - > comment there, this was a deliberate choice, precisely because it lent a grace note to the prose. No meaning harm, no foul. It is certainly not so plain prose as in much of the WP, but the virtues of either can be debated. In this case, it seemed appropriate to be a bit eldritch, matching the kittens. ww 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)