Talk:The Book of the Long Sun

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

2012-04-23: The long first section dates entirely from four days in June 2007.

Spoiler Tags

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler for more information. My quotations are from there.

The relevant part of the Spoiler tag policy that people were having issue over was the following:

"Articles about fictional characters, objects, or places can be expected to include significant elements of the story. They should not typically need spoiler warnings."

I remind you that this is not an article about a fictional character, object, or place. This is an article about a book, which contains information about its characters. Since it might attract people who want to know about the book but have not yet read the book, spoiler warnings are appropriate under the following:

"Spoiler warnings may be used in articles whose primary subject is fictional, and where the editor proposing them presents compelling reasons for their insertion. Such reasons should demonstrate that the spoiler tag does not diminish article quality, and that knowledge of the spoiler would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work."

The spoiler tag avoids ruining the book for those looking to obtain relevant data about it. If they are looking for more information about Patera Silk after having read the book, please feel free to create an article about him and write it out in detail. This way, you can remove all of the spoiler tags that you would like. OcciMoron 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPOILER makes it clear that articles on fictional characters can be expected to contain spoiler tags: "Articles about fictional characters, objects, or places can be expected to include significant elements of the story. They should not typically need spoiler warnings." I can see no reason why this article is exceptional in this regard. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occimoron said "I remind you that this is not an article about a fictional character, object, or place," so I think you're talking at cross purposes here. In particular, WP:SPOILER addresses classical works, nonfiction, PLOT and SYNOPSIS sections, and articles on "fictional characters, objects, or places". This is an article about a non-classical fictional book, not a character, object, or place, so WP:SPOILER does not specifically cover this article. --Jere7my 01:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that wikilawyering is not very convincing. WP:SPOILER is about all spoiler tags, regardless of subject material. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find it unconvincing, but the guideline is actually pretty clear, and it's what we have to go on. Please read it carefully. It suggests eliminating spoiler tags in specific circumstances, and this is not one of them. In particular, it draws a distinction between articles about things that are themselves fictional and things that contain fiction. I expect that the rationale is this (though I am guessing): it is impossible to write an article about a fictional character, object, or place without including spoilers, by the nature of the beast. Inserting spoiler tags would therefore be redundant. But it is possible to write an article about a work of fiction as a whole without including spoilers, so it may be useful to signal to the reader whether a given section includes spoilers or not. I might, for instance, want to know the ISBN of a book, so spoiler guides would be helpful to me. I could not make the same argument for an article on Patera Silk — that, by default, I should expect to include spoilers. (You'll note on the talk page for WP:SPOILER that this is a hotly contested issue at the moment; you might want to hold off on deleting spoiler tags until the dust has settled, lest you be accused of fanning the flames.) --Jere7my 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about works of fiction can certainly be expected to contain spoilers about the plot of the work of fiction. Any encyclopedic treatment of the fictional work will have to discuss its plot. You are wikilawyering on the spoiler policy - it certainly is not the case that spoiler tags can be included unless they are specifically prohibited by the policy. The point of the policy is that spoiler tags should not be used unless there is an individual, compelling reason for their use. I see no such compelling reason here, and the fact that this is not about a fictional character isn't a reason at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It certainly is not the case that spoiler tags can be included unless they are specifically prohibited by the policy." Good heavens — of course it is! That's how Wikipedia works. Spoiler tags can be included if the article editors achieve consensus about them. This article had consensus about including spoiler tags until a bunch of drive-by tag removers who haven't read the books started deleting them. --Jere7my 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the lack of a prohibition isn't an argument in favor of using tags here. I still see no justification given for why this individual article needs to have a spoiler tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that each spoiler tag needs its own justification is itself part of a disputed policy. "Because it might spoil things for people" is the justification I'm using. Anyway, you get one more reversion before you get warned about edit warring — do you want to use it now or call in some backup? --Jere7my 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that, it that's the only justification, others will be quite willing to remove the tag. If you would like, feel free to ask at WP:RFPP for the article to be protected due to edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is the only discussion ever to take place on the article talk page, I think it's far from clear that the issue of spoiler tags has had a good hearing here. I'm open to the possibility that they're sensible here - especially as this is an unusually arranged article for an article on a work of fiction. What's the case for their inclusion, though? ("I'm allowed to have them so I don't need a reason" isn't a very good case - even if it were true, surely there's a better justification than permission to include them.) Phil Sandifer 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think it's very difficult to make a case for or against spoiler tag inclusion without knowing what the policy should be. WP:SPOILER is in a state of dispute at the moment, so I don't know what case to make. --Jere7my 07:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's disturbing. I would have hoped that those defending the presence of spoiler warnings in the article space would be able to defend their use and value in specific articles, as opposed to just in the abstract. Phil Sandifer 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the matter is that this is not an especially well-known book by an author who is known for the hidden secrets that he puts into his novels. If someone has heard about the Book of the Long Sun and doesn't know how to find it/whether they would want to read it, and comes to Wikipedia looking for this information, I don't think it is appropriate for the article to reveal plot details without some degree of warning. As to the unusual structure, I began expanding this article months ago but have had very little time. Any help that can be offered with restructuring and expanding the article would be valuable.OcciMoron 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't want to learn about the characters in the book, they should go to Amazon.com or another shopping site that will give them an intentionally vague description and a lot of user reviews. The audience we are aiming for here is an audience that is interesting in learning the details about the book, preferably including a description of the plot, characters, critical reception, and influence of the book. It is perfectly appropriate, and beyond that it's expected, that an encyclopedia article will discuss the plots and characters of the works of fiction that it covers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should compare levels of detail in available contemporary literature articles from non-wiki encyclopedias to determine what is appropriate. I would be open to agreeing with the results of such an analysis. OcciMoron 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually looked at this. Most non-wiki encyclopedias do not have coverage of individual works by authors who are not Shakespeare. One, Encarta, has a sort of Cliffs Notes thing built into the encyclopedia that comes up for literature articles. But for the most part, once you've gotten used to Wikipedia, it's shocking how little breadth other encyclopedias have. We're in uncharted territory here. Phil Sandifer 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're in uncharted territory, doesn't any argument based on encyclopedic standards fall apart? As you point out, most encyclopedias do not include detailed plot summaries, and very few aim to have up-to-the-minute information, so naturally spoiler warnings are largely inappropriate in a traditional encyclopedia. --Jere7my 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted territory does not mean you throw all navigational principles out the window. It means you look at analagous situations and try to figure out the correct course of action from those and from the specific cases. It is fair to say that traditional encyclopedias do not contain warnings of any sort of objectionable content in the articles, and that they avoid neologisms. Thus the deck is, at least initially, stacked against spoiler warnings in Wikipedia. But specific cases may play out very differently from that general analysis - so what, again, makes this specific case compelling? Phil Sandifer 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument surely can't be that Wikipedia shouldn't contain neologisms, since "wiki" is itself one! Traditional encyclopedias also do not generally contain objectionable content (or, rather, they have an editorial board making decisions not to include things based on objectionable content) — my childhood would have been a lot more interesting if that hadn't been true. I disagree that the deck should be stacked against spoiler tags here; I think they should, in fact, be the default, not requiring any special justification. Wikipedia is its own beast, and what works for traditional encyclopedias may not work here. --Jere7my 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Histories of the main characters

I've renamed the "Main characters" section to "Histories of the main characters", which clarifies the content of the section. I've removed the spoiler style tag because it's redundant with the clarified section heading. --Tony Sidaway 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your motivation there, but I don't think it conforms to wikipedia's style (specifically, the word "histories" is inappropriate in this context- fiction is written in present tense to differentiate it from fact) in dealing with works of fiction. This article is in need of other sections that would help it conform, not renamed sections that deviate further. Perhaps this fix will work for now, but there are other issues with it. I recommend going back to the old style, with the tag, until the WP:SPOILER policy is no longer under dispute. OcciMoron 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* four * years * later *

I haven't changed it yet because I haven't finished the book, but in the character descriptions at the beginning of book 4, it's stated that Chenille is a natural daughter of Tussah, not grown from a cloned embryo. I'll look for sources that state she is from an embryo, but if I don't find any, I think I'll have to delete it for inaccuracy and being unsupported. Felisse (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incus should have a place in the article

Incus should have a place in the article. PPdd (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Book of the Long Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]