Talk:List of Honorverse characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-02-22. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Important (from WP:FICTION)

  1. Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).
  2. Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
  3. It is useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there.

[edit] Old talk

The article needs missing names from books 1-4, as well as the spinoffs and anthologies.

Names from F to Z need to be reformatted to fit the standard set in A-E.

There are too few details on many of the names. Each probably needs a minimal description including: ship(s)/station(s) served upon, positions held, participated battles/operations, and important family/business relationships.

Question: should a physical description be included, if available?

In addition to this list, it might be a good idea to create separate lists for each book, aimed at avoiding plot spoilers (such as the mere fact that a character survives for several more books). Should this wait until the current list is comprehensive of all the relevant books?

You can contribute to this article by helping complete reference information (A-J names have been completed)

[edit] Updates

All characters should have a reference info - which book(s) they appeared in. I have expanded this with a list from my old website (see summary for link, now in Internat Archive). Another old website to be assimilated: [1].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do

  • transform this ugly list into a nice looking one. I suggest basing it on List of Star Trek characters. We will obviously have no picture, I'd also suggest replacing rank and position with short description and adding info on in which books (short stories) character appreared in
You want us to do a table?
  • technical note: Adam Smith is preffered to Smith, Adam or <Smith> (brrr...)
  • should we ilink all characters, or only major ones? Ilinking all will give us lots of red links but will allow us to spot some newly created stubs (or disambis in need of creation). It will also save us the need to ilink an article once it is created...

Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Linking everything will be a major pain in the neck. I think we would be better off looking for orphaned articles with Google, and not worrying too much about the disambigs. --*Kat* 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think you are right. I have created the table, now we need to expand it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Kewl. You know, something that would make it "prettier" is if we used icons to denote things like Havenite, Manticoran, and Andermandi. We could have variations of those icons to denote other things like Navy, Politician. Just a brainstorm. --*Kat* 09:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I thought about it, but we have basically no graphics we can use :( I recently uploaded a tiny flag of mantiocre, but it's a pain to work with so few images. It would be great if we had a logo for each nation and organization, and for the ships, a silhouette with size depending on class...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being gone for so long. Since we don't have any graphics to use, why don't we make some? --*Kat* 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A remark about "Deacon" Anders: I checked the electronic copies of my books and I found nothing there to suggest that "Deacon" is anything else than his title, much less his first name. --jaellee 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point, fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful tool

For those who don't know, all Honor books are searchable online, however the database access is restricted for obvious reasons. For adress, login and pass ask on Baen's Bar, Honorverse or BuShip sections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] abbreviation table unreadable

The table of abbreviations is an admirable idea, but is questionable in execution. It is unreadable in several respects. Not being a table code maven, I'll merely note problem and hope someone who is will attempt a repair. ww 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that as much as it is user friendly, it is editor unfriendly. Not the first time I wish more people demanded the Wikipedia:Table: namespace and editor...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on creating a better table. But I won't replace the one with have with one that is any less user friendly.--*Kat* 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table is fixed

Happy?  :-) --*Kat* 05:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Good.

[edit] Good job!

Good job! If we tidy this up further, perhaps we have a chance at WP:FL.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to nonexistent articles

Several of the names are [[linked]] to articles that don't exist. Did they exist at one point and get deleted, or was someone thinking those particular characters deserved their own pages? I think ideally the links should be removed unless/until the corresponding articles are actually created. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 07:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Red links, usually, indicate articles in need of creation and should be retained unless one think they are not notable. On that subject, I think quite a few of existing character stubs are minor characters, not notable, that should be merged into this list.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Where's the harm in keeping them?--*Kat* 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I am far from deletionist, but see #Important (from WP:FICTION). Some of them may get proded and deleted, without us noticing, I am afraid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically this is the concern I have with the linked names--both for those that have articles and those that don't; most of them aren't important characters and don't really deserve their own article, and there are several "major" characters that aren't linked at all. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 04:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and delinked several red-links for names I personally felt should never be their own article. Some of the linked names link to very short articles that should probably just be merged with this list. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

While trying to add book references I've noticed there's quite a few inconsistencies in the article (not necessarily errors, though I'm sure there's plenty of those as well). Examples: The syntax used in the descriptions is very haphazard. Several of the descriptions have names that are linked to other sections, but not always. Honor's name spelled out in many places, is HH in others, and is sometimes linked.... It goes on. I will try to gradually fix problems, but I could sure use help. -- Heptite (T) (C) (@) 08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another new table

I tried to create a new table to hold the book title names, and while it looks great, the Explanation of Abbreviations table keeps trying to float next to it. Nothing I have tried has fixed the problem. If its not fixed by the end of the week, I'm all for reverting it, but hopefully some bright person can figure out where I went wrong. --*Kat* 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed merge here of list of treecats

There is now a tag suggesting merger of the treecat list article with this one. The edit comment suggests that it would be a return to the parent article. This is a misapprehension. The orginal article from which that list was extracted is treecat (see the talk). It has never at any time been a part of the present article.

While treecats are (or two in particular) full characters, and those of the rest who have been identified probably belong in the present list for completeness, the list of treecat article, and the annotations which it contains are somewhat out of step with this article. Too complete, no list of books in which appear, etc. That list was specially crafted as a sort of oppendix to the treecat article and the annotationw were originally intended to supplement it, partially to avoid too much detail in the article itself, and partly to avoid spoilers, insofar as possible.

By all means transfer in the treecat characters to this article, but the content in the treecat list article should not be lost. I myself think it ought to be restored to its orignal position and purpose in the treecat article.

Comments from others?? ww 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

makes sense to me.--*Kat* 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
disagree, that article is 145 kbs long, adding will only make it longer--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no hard and fast length limit on articles. This objection is off point a bit. We are writing an encyclopedia, whose virtue is clarity for the Reader, not minimum use of storage bits. ww 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I was source of the merge proposal. Apologies for my misinterpretation of where the other list came from. The format of this main character list is excellent and comprehensive; my hope and intent was that the treecat list should be included herein and brought up to this standard. I think it would be unwieldy in the treecat article, and merging that direction would still allow two non-overlapping lists of characters. I'd do the merging myself, but there's information missing to fill in the needed chart entries, and I'm not familiar enough with the setting. Serpent's Choice 13:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you now suggest. If it is to add treecat characters to the Honorverse list, I concur. The current list of treecats is poorly formatted for this however, and containe information not suited to the Honverse list. With a good bit of editing perhaps... There is no reason I can see to avoid overlaping. Parsimon is a virtue, but can be overdone. I still favor reinclusion in the treecat artciel. ww 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, merge sound good. They are already in our list anyway, it's just the case of moving descriptions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


removed merge notice. It's been quite a while. Most of the cats have been included here in any case. ww 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)