Talk:Foundation (novel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science fiction task force. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Seldon never left Trantor
"He and his team are exiled to Terminus, a small planet on the periphery of the galaxy, to work on the encyclopedia."
My memory might be faulty (with my advanced age, of course) but I do believe Seldon never left Trantor. →Raul654 05:31, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
- You're right, he didn't. But I don't feel like digging out my copy of the book to find out what he was doing Lefty 05:40, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
- IIRC, he was sent to a final meeting with Cheng(?). He uses psychohistory to predict he'll be exiled, or possibily even executed. He ends up getting his foundaion though, and I think he was senetenced to house arrest. He dies just as their are installing the time vault, before the colonists have arrived. But someone should really check this. →Raul654 06:01, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
-
- At the end of Forward the Foundation, there is an entry in the Encyclopedia Galactica explaining that Hari Seldon died in his office at Streeling University. The Foundation project as a whole was exiled to Terminus, but Seldon stayed in Trantor --Piman 09:23, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He was sentenced to exile by Chen... in fact the sentence was phrased in terms of Hari first and the project second. However, later events might have led to a compromise, being that Hari was old and felt himself near death, and that he was willing to cut all ties with the project, stop predicting ruin, etcetera once the exile had begun. 66.207.110.2 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Physohistorians and Wikipedists?
I picked up my copy the other day and started to wonder, what if something like that happened with wiki? we find that our ultimate goal isn't to create the perfect encyclopedia, but to let the universe take advantage of us for another more worthy goal..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- Great. If you are sent to a new planet, with the whole of Wikimedia Foundation, and unlimited access to Earth library; how long would it take you to build a nuclear reactor?Hillgentleman 05:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I also had this idea. I posted a suggestion to Jimbo Wales @ his talk page to change the line at the foundation wiki. Here's a link. W1k13rh3nry 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- A bit later... read a bit more... and look at this. Foundation (the title) and Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia's ultimate goal is to create a paper version of the encyclopedia. On page 51 (no clue what this means) "The Board of Trustees of the Encyclopedia Committee"... Wikipedia also has a "Board of Trustees" and a "Committee". Jimbo obviously based Wikipedia off this. W1k13rh3nry 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I know how long it would take for me to build a nuclear something else nasty, given the materials, from the information here. Another interesting point to ponder is Asimov's comments on sources here, how many studies are commenataries on glosses and never address the sources. As I've got a mamber of the Good Article committee doing exactly that on Talk:Albigensian Crusade, I think there's a warning here for us all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.13.197 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Broken External Link
I removed this external link from the Article page because it is broken
TheLimbicOne 18:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Encyclopedists cliffhanger?
In 'The Encyclopedists,' details as to Hardin's plans for dealing with the four kingdoms are not mentioned directly. The solution to the puzzle was only given in the opening of 'The Mayors.' 66.207.110.2 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Which was the starting point of the Interregnum?
F.E.1 or the Great Sack? I would think it should be the Great Sack, but it seems that First Foundationers think otherwise.Hillgentleman 03:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Importance rating
Top importance novel? Come on! I liked it too, but... It's top importance among science fiction novels, but not within literature or culture. It didn't trascend the genre like 1984. I'll change it to high.--Rataube 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terrible writing
This article consists mostly of a painfully long and sentimental series of plot summaries. Someone who has recently read the trilogy--and who also has a working knowlege of English--should re-write this mess.
[edit] Consolidating plot summary
- The summaries should be straight to the point encapsulating it in a as few words as possible.
Nw15062 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Consolidated "The Psychohistorians" plot summary to one paragraph.
( Next step "The Encyclopedist")Nw15062 (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC) - Consolidated "The Encyclopedist" plot summary to one paragraph.
( Next step "The Mayors"). Nw15062 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) - Consolidated "The Mayors" plot summary to one paragraph.
(Next step "The Traders")Nw15062 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC) - Consolidated "The Traders" plot summary to one paragraph.
(Next step "The Merchant Princes")Nw15062 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC) - Consolidated " The Merchant Princes" plot summary to one paragraph. (Next step
Add Facts &Characters List) Nw15062 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Foundation cover.jpg
Image:Foundation cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
