Wikia

Harry Turtledove Wiki

Talk:Harry Turtledove Wiki

6,431pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Picture TalkEdit

That is a creepy, creepy ass picture of Turtledove. Do we need one? Yeesh. Elefuntboy 05:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that creepy to me, and it is the most common by far. Why is it so prominent, though? Why not stick it to the side as an embedded thumb like we do with everyone else's picture? Turtle Fan 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To underscore the fact that this is not the main wikipedia. TR 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it just seems creepier to me because its so damn huge. I'm seriously creeped out. Can we make it less ginormous? Elefuntboy 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What about this one? 150px-Harry_Turtledove_2005.jpg

Or this one? http://www.lanecc.edu/library/inklings/images4/althistory11.jpg

Both make me less uncomfortable. Elefuntboy 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the picture as such, the other one seems worse than the one up there now. Perhaps if we embedded it and did a wraparound with the text the aesthetic would be better. But do people really think this is Wikipedia? To believe that you'd have to be nigh on stupid enough to think said Wikipedia is worth visiting. Now, why do we have links to the SV and WW categories but no others? That I really don't get. Turtle Fan 02:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A thought on how to make clearer how "in story" articles should be handled... rather than get into How To Edit right on the main page, what about a para. to the effect of "On this wiki, articles about characters, locations, and events in a particular timeline are written from the perspective of that timeline. For more information on this, see <How to Edit>...". then How To Edit could be broken into multiple sections, one for "in timeline" and one for non-timeline based entries. PonderousMan 23:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and rough what you have in mind out. You should be able to edit the main page. That way, everyone will see, comment, and edit if needs be. TR 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
will do... but it may need to wait until the weekend.

That's fine. TR 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Promoting the Turtledove Wiki Edit

Hello Turtledove aficionados! Thanks for the great work you've been doing here. I've got a couple of things to ask you about. First of all, I would like to feature your wiki in our "Wikia Spotlights", which can be displayed on our other wikis in order to bring more readers and editors here. You definitely meet the minimum article count -- can you please work on meeting the other criteria at Wikia:Wikia Spotlights?

The first easy thing you can do is to use the "move" tab to rename your main page from Main Page to Harry Turtledove Wiki: our stats show that including your wiki's topic in the title of your main page increases search engine rankings and visitor traffic significantly! You can also customize Template:Welcome and use it to start welcoming new users.

Finally, as we announced in our site-wide talk page notice recently, Wikia needs to change our layout and ad strategy for business reasons, to continue to be able to support our free hosting. I would like to help you make some changes to the layout of the main page, as described at Help:Main page column tags. I have played with some possible layouts on two pages: Main Page/Test1 keeps the main page content exactly the same, aside from moving the photo into the right column, while Main Page/Test2 shows some other ideas that you could use in a potential redesign. Please let me know what you think, and edit the test pages to suit you; we would like to get the design you are most happy with onto the live main page in the next week.

Thank you very much for your patience and cooperation -- I know ads aren't a fun thing for anyone, but we need to adapt to the changing market in order to keep our servers up and running, so that the Turtledove Wiki can continue to thrive and grow with the new visitors we hope to bring in with a Spotlight! I look forward to working with you -- please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any concerns or questions about the changes. — Catherine@Wikia (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Geography CategoriesEdit

TR's reference got me thinking, I believe it may be best not to put geographical articles (about places on the real map, not fantasy maps) into the categories of the stories in which they're mentioned. They pertain to those stories, but, unlike a place HT made up altogether like, say, the Nekemte Peninsula, they're not really of those stories.

That makes some sense. There are still some points on the "real map" that are going to be unique to a given TL, though. Plus, it seems "right" to have a country that plays a very critical role to a given story (Germany in ItPoME being the obvious one) in the story category. TR 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
A really important one like the CS in 191, maybe. Especially if it's a geopolitical entity that never existed in OTL.

Also, the story categories are starting to look rather untidy. Turtle Fan 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How so? TR 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me the largest ones are so bloated that they're in need of some subcategories: keep the really major stuff in the category proper, get some subcats for, say, military units, wars, political parties, cities, nations, weapons, technology, to name a few. Turtle Fan 06:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
So, for example, using wars--put Second Mexican War in Category:Wars in Southern Victory? TR 06:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This ^ Jelay14 06:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've been thinking dividing the cities category up by country might be a good idea.
Also, looking over the main wiki for ideas, Military Personnel of the *Blank* War might be better than the soldiers and sailors.
Plus, it might be a good idea to separate out the historical figures from the fictional characters (Historical Character in Southern Victory). TR 15:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As you've suggested in your example and Jelay endorsed.
Perhaps "X War Veterans" would be good as a supplemental category within Soldiers and Sailors. I'm not sure they should replace it. For one thing, that would lead to the creation of many micro-categories: Russian Civil War Veterans in TL-191, for example, would include maybe three.
I don't know if categories like SV Characters are worth dividing. For one thing, the fictionals and historicals interacted quite freely on equal terms. For another--Good luck with that! That would be damned near as much work as moving everyone in "Historical figure" to "Historical Figures," which I've wanted to do since I got here but which even then was too Herculean for me. Turtle Fan 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You know, I could have done that when I was revising links and or adding character templates. Shit, what a wasted opportunity. TR 21:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess we need to start figuring out which categories could use dividing up, then. TR 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just figured out Default Sort Edit

That's going to save some time. TR 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What does it do? Turtle Fan 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You click on it first when editing. It's in the little tool box at the bottom of the page. Then you put in the title of the article after the colon. Then, you don't have put the name of the article after the | in the category names. This will be most useful with characters. We no longer have to put in last names. See Milo Axelrod for an example. TR 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That does sound useful. And timely too, since we'll be changing the way we do categories. Turtle Fan 22:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers for USAEdit

Should we be calling them Spoilers or Articles? Seems Articles are, well, what they are, while spoilers are merely what they could be used as. And since the book's out now for the general public, the word "spoilers" with all its nasty connotations loses some relevance. Turtle Fan 04:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Global Search and Replace? Edit

Is there a Global Search and Replace feature in wikis?

That sure would make spelling corrections easier.


They could all be corrected at one fell swoop (Whatever THAT is:) )

EoGuy99 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. It's never actually come up before. You might ask someone at Live Wiki Help. TR 00:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a break Edit

I'm taking a break from the Southern Victory series and will be reading Disunited States and Two Georges next.

See ya all later.


EoGuy99 15:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace. Enjoy DSA. TR 15:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a happy. Turtle Fan 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy. DSA is a great fun read. Elefuntboy 02:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the character template Edit

So I'm curious why someone felt removing that little instruction is a good idea. TR 05:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be curious myself. It seemed like a good idea to me. Unless perhaps the remover felt it was inappropriate to put such low-level instructions on a page meant for some grand sweeping section? I don't know. Turtle Fan 23:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that and thought it peculiar but decided to leave it until you had a chance to take a look at it. ML4E 03:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

4900 articles Edit

Just a bare 100 left to write to bring us up to the magic 5,000.

1,000 of those articles will soon fall into the Americans category.

I was really hoping we'd get Germans over 200. Oh, well, Hitler's War will certainly do it. TR 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hot damn!
Wow. A fifth of our articles are on Americans. Turtle Fan 23:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We're at 4993. Maybe more if the counter is lagging. Before we add anymoure let's talk about what remains to be written that's significant enough to be worthy of 5000. I'd hate to have a little weenie article get the honor. Turtle Fan 04:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This might be a good starting point: http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WantedPages. TR 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I see a lot of WBtP articles of a major importance level, including several POV characters. Do we want a WBtP article to get the honor? It's neither Turtledove's most successful nor his best-received work, though I for one thoroughly enjoyed it. (I think I just recently donated my WBtP books in a bookshelf-cleaning fit.) Turtle Fan 21:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
If not Detina, I just noticed that Land of the Ice People is red, as is Alpine Redoubt. Those are both fairly significant parts of more conventional HT works.
Most of Darkness is red, so Land of the Ice People would only be so exciting. Alpine Redoubt I should do just because it is one of two or three MwTH that should be done. TR 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Of all the Derlavai articles, Land of the Ice People is the one that seems to have the most dead links to it. And other than Derlavai itself it's the only other known continent in that world--I find it odd that the northern hemisphere hasn't been explored, but there you have it. And I always liked it. The very name added a real level of romance. Turtle Fan 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
On another note, does anyone feel particularly attached to the idea of doing the honors themselves? Turtle Fan 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not. Let's just get it to 5,000 at this point, and I will be briefly elated. TR 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Better get busy and decide. I still have stuff to do and 5000 is coming up. ML4E 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hold off on the Real stuff. I don't think a 25-page short story is worthy of the honor. Turtle Fan 11:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

4998--We'd better decide this right now. How about Varina Davis? She's a prominent-ish character from a well-known HT novel and would fit into a fair number of categories. Turtle Fan 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Either her or Doshoweh, which has fifteen links at this point.
Basing it on number of red links is a good idea. Varina Davis has a few things going for her but she'd only be getting it because she happened to have come up in conversation shortly before the decision had to be made.
Umm--What is Doshoweh? Turtle Fan 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The capital city of The Six Nations. TR 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
My instincts tell me to treat Doshoweh as a sub-article of Buffalo, New York. I haven't come up with anything decisive in the book yet, so I haven't done the article. If I do it that way then "Doshoweh" will be a redirect which doesn't add to the article count.
It's the same as Buffalo? Then it should be the sub-article. That's emergingas our pattern. There are exceptions; for instance, I believe "Oklahoma in Southern Victory" is "See: Sequoyah." That should be reconciled to the new format, actually.
That was done some time ago. TR 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Shows what I know. I seem to remember a few months ago, when that annoying "There's A RAT in seperate" clown was around here, he made an edit to Oklahoma and one to Sequoyah, which was a different article. I'm probably misremembering some detail. Turtle Fan 20:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not completely clear that it is. That is the pattern HT uses in the story with T2G cities located in OTL locations even if they have different names. However, the map shows it on the south shore of the eastern tip of Lake Erie. OTL Buffalo is on the north shore of the eastern tip. On the third hand, I do not have great confidence in the maps in HT's books so I am reading carefully for clues. Nothing yet but I'm not finished with "The Six Nations" chapters. ML4E 04:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if we do fix it our article count will go down. We might give one article the distinction of being our 5000th, drop back below that number, and have to create a second 5000th. Who would have thought this would be so delicate? Turtle Fan 04:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Once we break the magic 5000, I should be able to whip out a half dozen minor "Getting Real" articles to keep us above that level. ML4E 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The comments about the incompleteness of the GotS articles reminded me that "Nate Caudell" hasn't been written yet. He is the other POV in the book and gets as many pages as Robert E. Lee so that might be a good choice for the 5000th. ML4E 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
He's a major character from a major HT work. And he'd get at least seven categories that I can think of offhand: Historical figure, Americans, Confederates, POVs, GotS Characters, Soldiers, and Educators. Also it would be nice to cross the threshold with a character--They're my favorite kind of article, and since I'd estimate we've got at least 40% of the Wiki made up of character articles, I'd say I'm not alone. Turtle Fan 04:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we should also break scene and put some little note "This article is the 5,000" under a trivia section. TR 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Turtle Fan 00:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

4999. God but this is exciting. Who wants to do Caudell? Turtle Fan 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well (clears throat) I guess it only remains now to write the Caudell article. I can't do it myself because I haven't read GotS in eleven years, I loaned my copy out to someone who never returned it, and I really don't feel like having to run dozens of words through Search Inside in search of every minor detail. So have at it, young studs. Turtle Fan 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This applies to me as well, save that my copy is 200 miles away in storage at my parents' house. TR 21:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe he's not a great choice then. Unless we were to write a skeleton article for now? Turtle Fan 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On another note I clicked on several of the Wikia to which we link to see how our 5000 compares (will compare) to them. As you'd expect we're dwarfed by the Star Trek and Star Wars wikia--Memory Alpha has a little under 30,000 and Wookiepedia is around 65,000, though apparently they've taken to putting articles taken from the dozens on dozens of Star Wars fan fic books that one sees in a bookstore in the same wiki, and often in the same articles, as the canonical story. Star Trek has a seperate wiki for fan fic, though they do seem to include parts of that stupid Star Trek cartoon that was on years ago--which is, by the way, apparently the winner of the only Emmy in the history of the franchise. Odd, that; Star Trek's a venerable television institution.

Per Lucas, all Star Wars novels are canon. TR 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, none of the handful of others I chose at random came close to our soon-to-be glorified height. Though (snicker) I worry that the SM Stirling wiki we once found will (snicker) soon be breathing down our necks. Turtle Fan 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

F.Y.I. http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Big_wikis ML4E 03:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty of upgrading us, giving ourselves the star we deserve. It felt good.
Holy shit there are a lot of Star Trek fan-fic wikia! Turtle Fan 03:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I noted the existence of alhistory wiki. I'm going to ask if they would like to link here and vice-versa. TR 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Only 2 HT books scheduled in 2009Edit

As of right now, only HW and GMBML! have official release dates this year. The last Gap book, The Golden Shrine, has not been set for release yet.

If HW weren't already announced as a series, I'd wonder if HT might actually be retiring. TR 21:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He's done with X-time, then? And how sure are we that there's more Atlantis to come?
Per an email from Silver, No contract for more X-time. Silver says 3rd Atlantis book is the last contracted. So 99% sure it will come eventually. TR 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Last contracted? As in, last ever?
X-time I don't care about. I never read any of them, and DSoA is the only one that ever remotely interested me. Turtle Fan 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Not last ever per se, just no plans to expand right now. It's not unheard of for an HT series to expand a volume (GW being the obvious one). Given the issues hinted at in the stories, I really don't see how there won't be another volume. TR 05:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. I would be content with a trilogy for Atlantis. But when you say "last contracted," within the context of a discussion of his slowing production and possible retirement, the thought, however unlikely, had popped into my mind that A3 would be the grand finale of his career.
Hmm, I wonder if, whenever he does decide to hang it up, he'll give us a kick-ass, best work yet to go out on, or will he just finish whatever books he's got contracted and call it a night? Turtle Fan 11:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe he had announced the release of TBoG by this time last year, so no announcement on TGS isn't so bad. I didn't read BtG till the end of April, and I seem to recall checking around that time and finding no announcement of an upcoming sequel, though I knew it was coming down the pike.
Minimally he will do TGS. The end of TBoG leaves it absolutely inconceivable that there will be no more of that series. And I'm not talking about Evidence!, either; I'm talking about pretty much cutting out in mid-battle. Turtle Fan 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure TGS is coming. Just no idea when. TR 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
BtG was '07 and TBoG was '08. However, BtG was early '07 and TBoG was late '08, very late. So much so that I don't even know whether it was possible to begin reading it in '08: I never saw a live copy in any bookstore (still haven't, come to think of it) and ordered it the week after Christmas. Shipping times are slowed at that point, and I didn't get it till--the first Monday after the weekend after New Year's, I believe it was.
Anyway, the paperback of BtG came out long before the hardcover TBoG. They happened to be in consecutive calendar years, but had far more than a year between them, so I'm not expecting TGS in '09.
Not sure how much I'm looking forward to it. Those glacier dwellers are downright creepy, and reading about them and thinking about them verged on disturbing. Marcovefa even more so than the rest of 'em, and her role in the story kept growing more and more prominent all the time. Turtle Fan 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Category for Business owners Edit

I'd like to create a category for the people who own businesses or are entrepreneurs generally.

Any preference on a category name? TR 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Businessmen. Jelay14 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There will be women in the category. Business Owners is sufficiently gender neutral. TR 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
If he wants it to include "entrepreneurs generally," wouldn't "Entrepreneurs" be a better choice? Not everyone who--shit, what's the verb form? Entreprenes?--owns a business. Turtle Fan 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Eliza Dushku nekkid Edit

While I haven't decided if I'll be watching "Dollhouse", I do like that picture of Eliza that advertises the "Dollhouse" Wiki. TR 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

down boy Jelay14 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware my comments were that salacious. TR 23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you dog you. Turtle Fan 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured ArticlesEdit

Two questions: How often do these articles rotate, and how do we add articles to the rotation? Turtle Fan 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The template in place is not automatic. We have to rotate it. TR 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah. So it will change whenever we remember to change it? Turtle Fan 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid so. There might be some sort of automatic template, but we don't have it. TR 21:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This isn't going to change very often, then, is it?
There's a wiki I sometimes use for baseball trivia. I think their feature rotates weekly. We could see if anyone would be willing to tell us how they do it. Turtle Fan 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been a good month since Yeager first got put up there. Time for a rotation. I was recently impressed by the succint but extensive Race-German War of 1965. Turtle Fan 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I rolled back your taking out the template. Both tables and illustrations make for much more interesting and attractive articles. Yeager of course didn't have any illustrations, but those that do should have them included. They contribute to the look and feel of the article, and anyway, most wikia that use featured articles include them. Now that we're a hair away from big league, we should emulate them. Turtle Fan 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We've had Axis up there FOREVER! We've got to change it and I mean like now. Suggestions? An article about a novel, perhaps? Turtle Fan 15:42, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

We haven't done a novel yet. RB is fairly complete. TR 15:51, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
That's what I had thought. It's a good mainstream novel, too, in that it can serve as an example of a typical HT novel, unlike, say, GMBML! which is much farther from the mean. I shall make the change directly. Turtle Fan 19:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Policy re:anonymous hit and runs Edit

I'd like to propose the following policy change to anonymous editors who rewrite articles to comport with OTL.

Rather than ban them outright, we first do a rollback, and ignore them.

Should they attempt a second rewrite, we then launch a series of insults calling into question their intelligence (with a special emphasis on their literacy), as well as attacks on their personal appearance, their hygene, and their mothers.

Discussion? TR 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

sure whatever Jelay14 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we launch into the attacks immediately? That would seem to be more fun. Turtle Fan 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. TR 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Great. Can't wait for a spammer. Turtle Fan 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Geocities stuff should we save it?Edit

Like this stuff here http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/GLBB.html it's linked to on the Turtledove webstie\te but since Geocities is goiugn down... Jamhaw 03:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)jamhaw

I guess we can cut and paste. TR 05:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sitting On a Gold MineEdit

I typed the URL into a browser on a new computer (new to me, that is) and for some reason rather than taking me here it took me to a Google search results page for our address. The first hit was of course our home page. A link to the Hitler article was also provided--I'm not too up on my Google-ese but does that mean it's our top article?

The second hit was a website that estimates the net worth of websites. Intrigued, I clicked. As of March 9 our estimated worth was $8.3 million. Apparently we generate upwards of $11,000 in ad revenue every day. This is all based on the fact that we get 3.7 million page views a day--Now that I'm disinclined to believe, especially since the exact number was a suspiciously symmetrical 3,703,703. Makes me wonder in fact if the entire thing was bullshit. I'm pretty sure it was, I find it hard to imagine some dot-com hanger-on spending almost eight and a half million for our little site here.

But if they would--Well that would suck, because we don't own it. Not sure whether Silver or Wikimedia would be considered the owner. Whoever it is, such value as the site does have is all thanks to the regulars--We make it worth visiting, which in turn makes it worth advertising on, so if we're to consider turtledove.wikia.com a commodity, we've provided all the value by our labor with no compensation. How positively Marxian.

Anyway, I was amused by the whole thought process. Turtle Fan 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline 191 on Wikipedia Edit

There is a move to delete a lot of the Timeline 191 articles on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hispano-Japanese_War

Personally I don't think most of the articles listed on that page should be on Wikipedia, but a few might be useful here if anyone wants to save them. Mitro 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Those Wiki-stapo goons have all sorts of restrictions on in-universe writing for elements of fictional works. (So much for "the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The disingenuity of that claim has been apparent for years.) Makes projects like this far more appropriate homes for those round pegs--We don't try to cram them down square holes. Still in all, we're a pretty big project, and we've covered TL-191 very thoroughly. I can't imagine there's anything over there that we don't have here. Turtle Fan 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Most of the articles being deleted did already have articles here, but a few didn't and some could be enlarged by their Wiki counterparts. I have recently done so, but I apologize if all the links aren't correct at the moment. I'll get to work on that when I get the chance. Mitro 14:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, these articles. I remember writing them several years ago. Jelay14 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
We might think about conflating these new articles with older ones. I don't think Occupied Canada is so different from the main Canada article.
The Feahterston Administration article is a little weak. We could just move it to the main article on Jake Featherston. TR 23:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
However you guys want to handle it. Turtle Fan 10:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the articles TR, you saved me some time. I also don't care what happens to the articles. I only wanted to save any content that might have been useful. Mitro 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't really make a difference to me whether you merge them, conf-whatever them, or just erase them from history. Go for it. Jelay14 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, there is another movement to delete some of the 1632 articles on Wikipedia. I've already moved a couple to the Eric Flint Wiki. Mitro 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be more useful there. Flint's been around a much shorter time and has a smaller core of regulars, right? I'm sure that translates into less evolved articles. Turtle Fan 11:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

5500Edit

We're getting tantalizingly close to being closer to 6000 than 5000.

It's been thirteen months since we got to 5000. Think that means we'll have another thirteen months to 6000?

Part of this was TR combining the minor characters of a couple of novels into one large article for each. That probably dropped the number of articles by at least a hundred to two hundred since re-directs don't count. ML4E 23:44, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. It is a matter of quality over quantity, and I'm glad to see we're almost halfway there without the superfluous entries. Turtle Fan 00:28, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
I was getting ready to do that with 191 and WW, but there are so many such superfluous articles that I felt overwhelmed at the thought. I suppose in the interest of consistency, I should either go forth and finish what I started, or I should undo what's already been done, call the experiment a failure, and move on. TR 02:40, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it's worth doing; we'll help you. However, it would be nice to hold off till we're well over 5500. Turtle Fan 03:32, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
The work you did before was, as I recall, for stand-alone novels. If we do the same for the series, I suggest it be done by novel; i.e. "Minor Characters in HFR", "Minor Characters in GW:AF", etc. That might make it more manageable. ML4E 20:48, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
What about someone like Wilfred Rokeby or Isabella Antonelli? Well they could be on the pages for however many novels they appear in; it's not like we can only have one section apiece on them. Turtle Fan 21:08, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
That may be a good compromise. (Incidentally, I know you were using Rokeby as an example of someone who appeared in GW and AE, but that particular article is quite substantive these days).
Ah. Well, he's still minor. Turtle Fan 03:21, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Neither of your examples are in the "Minor Characters" category. As I recall the discussion, these would be characters who appear in one or two scenes only so while Rokeby or Antonelli are by no means major characters, neither are they minor. A better example that occurs to me would be the US Army recruitment sergeant that convinces Cinci to re-apply as a truck driver for the army. He has two scenes, one each in a separate book but they are disjoint enough that putting them in two articles wouldn't cause much of a problem. Cross-reference links could also be included. ML4E 17:34, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Damn, I'd forgotten the existing standard. Someone like Eyechart, then. Or maybe the Mormon Major. (This could be very bad for Unnamed Characters, now that I think of it; it might even finish the category off.)
Then again, if the goal is to pare down the profusion of articles on unimportant characters, we might want to consider liberalizing the standard for "minor." Turtle Fan 19:46, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps word count for such articles should be a starting point. Short article often =limited value character. TR 00:57, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
And I actually did combine minor characters from Atlantis. So we do have one series. But it's a small series, so it was nowhere near as daunting. TR 21:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
All those soldiers and so on--Actually as I recall a few of them had substantial articles too. Turtle Fan 03:21, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well those thirteen months saw four novels released. The first, no one read. The second we all read but it was so tedious we've put off writing most of the articles. The third I read and recoiled from in disgust. The fourth I guess we developed pretty well. There were also a good number of short stories over that period, and we first discovered some old ones, like "Trantor Falls" and that . . . thing with the hamster.

In the next thirteen months we'll have only W&E for novels. There will probably be a few more short stories in there.

I wonder how many articls we'd have if we completed everything--if we ever got around to finishing WBtP or FP, if we rolled up our sleeves and got serious about Darkness, if we held our noses and waded through The Gap, if we downed caffeine pills and stayed awake through HW, if we did any work on EIaK, Gerin, Scepter of Mercy, TCotTSD, Thessalonica, Noninterference, et cetera et cetera. If everything were covered as thoroughly as our favorites are, I guess I'm saying.

We'd probably need a lot more people for that. Ideally, people whose interests were more diversified than ours are. Turtle Fan 01:22, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we need the Darkness fans, the Videssos fans, etc. We need time, too. TR 01:24, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
With output slowing down, time we're likely to have more and more of.
As for the other, anyone from the Videssos list who might be worth luring over? The problem is, that risks bringing Silver back. Turtle Fan 01:32, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
If Silver wrote articles, he'd be more than welcome. As for the first part of the question: No one seems likely. TR 01:37, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
He'd make you get out of the captain's chair, you know.
Eh, I've left an imprint on this place that he'd spend years trying to match. TR 18:12, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
True. But then, there would go the neighborhood.
Or he might leave us alone. Other than the Inside Jokes, he did give us a pretty free hand. Of course, we were much more modest and less imaginative then.
Also, he might decide that whateve reasons he had for bugging out are still good even if we bring it to his attention. That would be best. Turtle Fan 20:15, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
But did he write a lot of articles? I seem to remember him as more of a proofreader and a delegater.
He wrote his fair share. Mostly new articles from his reviewer copies. TR 18:12, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
And Videssos, yeah, I didn't think it was likely. Turtle Fan 04:20, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia's Science Fiction WikisEdit

You know those little index boxes for Fantasy and Sci-Fi Wikis? I just noticed we don't appear in the latter. Turtle Fan 16:53, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

We should probably follow up. TR 18:01, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. . . . Turtle Fan 18:54, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
It appears we are not on the Wiki app on IoS devices.Zhukov15 (talk) 15:33, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Featured ArticleEdit

RB--which really is not that great an article, even if it is my favorite HT novel--has surely overstayed its welcome. I'm thinking one of the trivia articles could replace it; those are pretty thorough. However, they're also written in a format that doesn't really lend itself to taking the top section and putting it on the front page by itself. Maybe a section of an article could speak for the whole thing? Like, say, literary allusions to GWTW, or inconsistencies in Worldwar? One with a zanily captioned photo, of course.

Also, we should see about setting up some sort of automatic rotation, rather than doing it manually approximtely whenever we notice the current one has been up way longer than it was intended to. Turtle Fan 20:25, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

5692Edit

I see we're eight articles away from 5700. Now 5700 articles lacks some of the drama of 5000, or 1000 Americans, or even 800 historical figures. Still, we can make a big push this weekend. And it would be a useful excuse to hit up the Create These Articles list. Turtle Fan 15:46, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Edit

I like the new logo, with the bird from the B&I cover. Despite the AE covers being the least detailed of any of the 191 books, I liked them best. That bird fascinated me, watching him evolve as totalitarianism took hold. Turtle Fan 12:34, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

New SkinEdit

There's a new skin to this Wiki and it's disgusting. I hate it. Can we change it back? Turtle Fan 03:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Skin is individual to the user. TR 03:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
So I see. The one I like, the one we always had, seems to be no longer available, however. All you can do is futz with the colors. Turtle Fan 03:15, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


The Featured Article Section Edit

When was the last time we changed the featured article?Zhukov15 (talk) 21:06, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Thank You! Edit

Visiting other wikis has opened my eyes to fact that I'm lucky to belong to this wiki. Hats off to the admin of this wiki, who have made every effort and a lot of time to make this wiki how it is today. Thanks, guys, I'm HT himself would be grateful and impressed. Zhukov15 (talk) 16:45, August 9, 2013 (UTC)Zhukov15

It's my experience that Wikis tend to be run either by autocratic bastards who keep on top of everything related to the topic, but enforce so many rules so strictly that there's no joy in it; or else by easygoing people who mean well, but invest so little effort in management that the project never gets off the ground, and eventually everyone involved loses interest. I do think we offer one of the better examples that I've seen of synthesizing the positives of both styles. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:24, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

Making a Damn Template! Edit

Can you guys tell me how to make an template? The thing is proving more complicated every time I look at it. And, no, it is not for this wiki.Zhukov15 (talk) 16:39, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

I find a model for the template that I want to create, go to "edit", copy the code, paste it into the new template, then change what needs to be changed.
What sort of template are you trying to create? TR (talk) 16:47, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
A infobox for an TV show.Zhukov15 (talk) 17:31, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
For the tv show itself, or for characters in the show, or other? TR (talk) 17:52, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
For the seasons of the show. Zhukov15 (talk) 19:04, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
Try the television season template at Wikipedia linked here. You'll need to create the template like you would an article, but the name will have to look like this: Template:Infobox (name of box). Then copy the code from Wikipedia and paste it into your new template. Then fine tune for the other wiki. TR (talk) 19:25, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Really grateful. Zhukov15 (talk) 19:46, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki