Talk:1632 series

Archives

Task Force / Work Group

The discussion here, for the most part, should be moved to a Task Force or Work Group under the Alternate History WikiProject. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of works.

With Grantville Gazette Volume 32 having just been released, some parts of this article are way out of date. Would be nice if there was a way to link such data between two or more articles. Bizzybody (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

The plot summary is neither too long nor overly detailed.--Nemissimo (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the improvement calls from Nov 2013 on the article page

How is ---any--- comprehensive article on an alternate history series supposed to be other than from primary sources?

There -isn't- anything but primary sources.

There are, of course, blogs and reviews, and you can, if you want, make the inevitable noteability argument. You can, if you insist, argue that the lack of third-party analysis and documentation means that the series isn't worthy of a wikipedia article. You can do that. Of course, a series with multiple best-selling novels, the largest alternate history series in the history of publishing, and the science fiction series with the largest number of professionally paid authors in publishing history is logically not noteable enough for a wikipedia article, because no one in academia or journalism cares to write the articles that this page should be based on.

Based on that conclusion, we would be limited to Tolkein's Rings, and perhaps Narnia.

just how far does a source have to be removed before it is not primary? Are the non-fiction articles in the Grantville Gazette, a periodical with a circulation substantially larger than that of many scholarly journals worthy? Or is the fact that the Gazette also publishes 1632 fiction exempt it?

(Note, _I_ am a primary source, since I'm a member of the 1632 editorial board and a paid fiction author in the series with a book currently in development for the series. so I avoid editing these pages, even though, of course, there are, for all practical purposes no more authoritative sources than those of us who serve on the board. Oh well. Ocassionally wikipeida rules and reality conflict. This may be one of those times.) Rick Boatright (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rick; "Orange Mike" Lowrey here. The problem is that the person doing the tagging is right in a lot of ways. Take the semi-randomly chosen line from a description of the Bar, "where technical aspects are hammered out and discussed to a surprising thoroughness". Now you and I both know that's true: but what impartial, third-party sources have said anything of the sort? Part of the mutual agreement Wikipedians have, is that articles be neutrally phrased and backed up by reliable sources. At this point, while nobody is claiming the series is other than notable, the article badly needs sourcing from those impartial third-party sources, not just from the books, the Bar and the Gazette; and it needs cleanup to read less like a fansite. Another trivial example: I removed the line which described Eric as "a champion of the common man" because it's true, but phrased as fluff; and replaced it with hard facts: he's a former union organizer and a socialist. Multiply that times a hundred or more. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the fellow who put the tags up, aside from what Orange Mike said, the answer to "How can we include all this stuff if the only sources are primary ones?" is "You can't." Now while I don't buy into the strawman of if-we-have-to-source-it-that-means-it's-not-notable, there's a common belief on Wikipedia that if proper sourcing doesn't exist for a particular subject, the various policies governing sourcing should be suspended for the benefit of that subject's fans. That fallacy isn't supported by WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and the like. That many more scholars and academics have written about Middle-Earth than about Grantville is a fact, however distasteful that truth may be. There is no "reality" here that conflicts with Wikipedia rules.

For my part, I'm a fan of the series; I own several of the books in hardcover. It may well be true that the series, for example, is the largest alternate history series in the history of publishing ... but we cannot say so on Wikipedia without reliable sources saying so. It may well be true that is the science fiction series with the largest number of professionally paid authors in publishing history ... but we cannot say so on Wikipedia without reliable sources saying so. I've let this sit for a month without taking out my machete in the hopes that those active in creating this article would trim it (or source it) to conform to Wikipedia policies. If that isn't going to happen, then I'm willing to undertake that myself. That material which isn't suitable for Wikipedia can readily be hosted on 1632.org, if the webmasters there see fit. Ravenswing 10:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, if however frustrating. Part of the "arghhh" is the result of having been editing on Wikipedia for far too long. I began that process back when the entire server array consisted of two machines and that the standard of writing for the site was "brilliant prose." I participated in the notability and sourcing discussions and endorsed them. Sometimes, however, the "no primary sources" rule is frustrating. I certainly understand why, as I said, I participated in those discussions way back when. The issue comes to the front when there is truly interesting material which you can't find a third party source for. An example is plot summaries. No Heinlein book lacks a plot summary. None of those are sourced in a 3rd party source. I don't begin to know where you would find one. :-) The sourcing discussion is nuanced, and like all nuanced issues, is sometimes frustrating. On the other hand, I was an early supporter of it. The increasing number of properly sourced articles assists in the process of us moving from wikipedia being a joke to it being citable itself. -- Still, sometimes, it's frustrating. Rick Boatright (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few people object to plot summaries; it's not just a matter of a Heinlein book, most articles about books, movies or TV episodes contain plot summaries. I don't myself object to plot summaries. But this article as it stands is not a proper Wikipedia article by current standards -- it's a fan page. There are absolutely places on the Web for fan pages. This isn't it. Lacking anyone wishing to bring this article to proper standards, I expect to start swinging that machete within a few days. Ravenswing 04:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be renamed 'Ring of Fire' Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.251.209 (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It may well be true that is the science fiction series with the largest number of professionally paid authors in publishing history " -> this ist not true -> SF series with the largest numbers of professionally paid authors is "Perry Rhodan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.245.88.68 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grantville

Can someone please confirm this edit? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Grantville_%281632_series%29&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=684765522&oldid=602073805 217.92.248.181 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weber's agreement on European threads

The article includes this phrase: "This agreement for Weber to leave aside European threads". I see no antecedent for the word "this", nor other references to an agreement on Weber's activity in European threads. Perhaps a section was removed? Please clarify. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Fire Press books

The list of non-1632 books published by Ring of Fire Press has no business being in an article about the "1632 series". 67.231.66.125 (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks

Under the sections "1632-verse glossary of terminology" and "Fictional characters" are both completely empty with the exception of links to nonexistent articles. I have therefore have two questions:

1) Did these articles previously exist, is someone working on them, or have they always been redlinks?

2) Could not the intended contents of the nonexistent articles be placed in this article? Count Cherokee (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]