Honorverse:Community Portal

The Community Portal is for discussions on the Wiki in general. Comments on individual articles belong on the talk page of these articles. The easiest way to contact users is to write on their respective talk pages. If you want to discuss the Honorverse in general, you can do so in the Forum.

Please sign your comments and questions with four tildes. ( ~~~~ )

Archive
1

Chronology of Stories

OK, I can see the Timeline. But the one thing that I don't see is a Chronology of the different stories (and sources), something like what Sandra Miesel did for Poul Anderson's Technic Civilization books. Is there any such page? If not, where should such a page be placed? -- 65.83.116.10 23:03, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

The Honorverse novels page features a list of all works in the chronological order, or rather in the one they should best be read in, as some of the more recent storylines overlap. -- SaganamiFan 23:49, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Check wikipedia:Honorverse--dotz 07:29, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Character Templates

Should we start making a side template for the characters that give a quick description of them like we have with the battles, and hopefully we can do the same to ships, and ship classes. --Farragut79 23:12, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

If we do it, we should limit it to articles that are actually long enough to make an overview box neccessary and practical. Many ship/character/class articles are very short with very limited information, and just to have an almost empty box repeat what little is in the text next to it seems useless to me. But in cases of "main" ships and characters, this could be quite helpful...

-- SaganamiFan 23:27, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Short story contradictions

I think we need a policy discussion where information from the Honorverse short stories that contradicts or confuses information from the novel canon is concerned. In some cases there is a certain way a subject matter is handled in all the novels, and then in the short stories, one of the other authors uses another wording or has obviously no interest in making it coherent with the rest of the fictional universe, and -- to be brutally honest -- fucks the whole thing up.

For example, trying to implement our description methods on David Drake's "A Grand Tour" is almost impossible, he speaks of "Reserve Midshipmen" and the entire Colonel Arabi matter is more like Star Wars than Honorverse, with people gambling over starships and stuff.

Another example is StateSec, which seems to be a different organization in almost every appearance. -- SaganamiFan 06:15, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I suggest separate forum and conclusive page. BTW there are two categories of stuff: (1) contradictions - IMHO really pure contradictions are relatively seldom, (2) semi canon ideas - not directly conradictory, but not present in novels/DW's novels

Fortunatelly some Drake's ideas can be translated into "canonic language". Gambling issue was rather explained well (I trust Melungeon would do it). May be we should create list of things to ask David Drake and Eric Flint (eg. what class of warship had 6/6+ commissioned officers only).--dotz 21:36, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Problems with StateSec - Fanatic?--dotz 21:38, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Tempus talk

(started at Treecat) taken from SaganamiFan's talk page)

I have just noticed your sugestion that the WP treecat article was unreferenced and likely original research to some extent.

As to unreferenced, well, we are looking at fiction, and the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes and such doesn't really apply, there being no factual claims being made and requiring connection to sources.

I was the primary author of that page before it was deleted. There is no original research of any kind, nor is any aspect of it speculative. It does seriously rely on off-hand comments in the assorted texts, and makes them into connections to the universe reality. Fair enough in this context, I think.

It was also constructed rather carefully to avoid disclosing too much, and to lead from the general to the specific -- at least mostly. The rearrangement in the version here is, in my view, unfortunate and makes the article less useful.

You might find some of the discussion about its deletion from WP of some interest. You may note that at least one favoring deletion used "Wikia's opinion" as yet another reason to delete it as worthless for WP purposes. Not an edifying nor uplifting nor very well thought out action or discussion. Wilkipedia Ww

I'll look into it. Thanks for the update, I always find it best to have the original author in on such a discussion, so you're very welcome! I have a feeling that we are in a little bit of disagreement as to what constitutes original research, but I agree that the overall structure of the treecat article will need to be worked on. However, I found the treecat article in its WP version also rather unfortunate. We're trying to be a little more down to the facts rather than writing essays of extensive length that need to be read from beginning to end to be grasped... but that, of course, is also a matter of interpretation.

So I hope you feel in no way personally offended, because that was clearly no intention of mine, and let's see how the rest of your stuff can be integrated.

Best regards, -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 11:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think we disagree on what constitutes original research. What I didn't do in the WP article was to cite each factoid I used. I thought that citation to fiction was silly for WP, and still do, though I understand that Wikia may have a different standard. NOTHING was original research in the WP article, and you will find this so as you adapt it to Wikia.

As said before, I'll be glad to stand corrected, but I will also not ignore my own doubts, especially since I ran into a number of errors while adapting WP material - from misspelled names to wrong dates to terminology never used in the novel.

And, as I also said before, a small look at Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, or any other seriously managed fiction wiki will show you that precise citations for the given facts are a common standard. -- SaganamiFan (Talk)

Your perspective as to it being an essay is I think incorrect. I was attempting to write and encyclopedia article, with a minor goal of not spoiling the books for those who read the article. The tone was not that of a fanatic, though some in the discussion which lead to deletion we clear that was the motive and the result as well. The choice of general topics was a consequence of the encyclopedia article style. One may disagree with their arrangement, or even the choices I made, but had it been an essay, almost none of that structure would have been present. I would have chosen a narrative arc designed to hold interest, not to neutrally describe the topic.

I think you're taking me a little to literally here, which of course is mainly my fault for using the comparision with an essay in the first place. I apologize. -- SaganamiFan (Talk)

The verb tense pattern adopted here is quite odd to the English speaking ear. For the Wikia article to read well, some editorial repair effort will be needed.

Well, most of us aren't native speakers and I have to admit that on several occasions what I was taught in school/college was not consistent with what native speakers told me to be right - I'd be very glad if you explained in greater detail - after all, one never stops learning. -- SaganamiFan (Talk)

Best of luck. Wikipedia ww 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx :-)) and I just want to make clear again how very much I appreciate the work and passion you obviously put into this article. My language was a little harsh on this matter, but that was mainly because I disliked the way it was inserted without anyone even taking a look at how things are done around here. -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And as for your comment that the usual scholarly apparatus of footnotes and such doesn't really apply – it does here, as it does on most fiction wikis. -- SaganamiFan (Talk) 11:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made an editing pass over the entire Treecat article, correcting unfortunate verb tenses (and little else). You will find it on my user page at 'workbench'. Please look it over. If satisfactory, it can be substituted for the current Treecat article.

I did not add the canonical reference citations which Wikia has, in my view, inappositely adopted as policy (from en:Wikipedia?). I had already checked them against Canon when writing the original Wikipedia article (overr some months) and the prospect of repeating all that work was more than I could endure. I am forced to leave it to someone else, who may at lest be assured that a citation exists and can be found and thet they are not chasing a mere will 'o the imagination.

While I was editing, I noticed there was material missing which may be usefully restored from the deleted Wikipedia article, and that several other articles here show the same pattern of odd verb tenses. I expect changes will have to made to several other articles. 08:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it, and I've no problem with adding the references over time, but, frankly, what you describe as "unfortunate verb tenses" is, as far as I can make it out, mainly the use of the past tense, and we use that tense on purpose, for reasons already stated on several occasions. And don't tell me it doesn't make sense, this matter was discussed at length on numerous fiction wikis and the past tense is common on almost all of them; you won't convince me that none of the several thousand users on Memory Alpha and the Wookiepedia who are fine with that policy are native speakers.

Per Sassure's definition of what a language is, the opinions of fluent speakers aren't readily or properly dismissible. Miss Fidditchian tidying urges to the contrary not withstanding.

I appreciate the difference in time references in fiction of the Honorverse type, and the subsequent awkwardness in discussing them, but still hold that the convention in English (and one which clangs considerably to the fluent ear when violated) is to use present tense -- 'as though' the fictionally described action is happening at present. Some grammarian or other has probably classified this as the 'fictional present tense' or some such. There is no good conventional solution for problems of applying the same tense to events in a story not happening the time frame currently in use. But then languages aren't overly logical in their structure or conventions, so that's not much of an objection. And English is more relaxed (or wildly chaotic, your choice) than most, I gather. It certainly is with regard to vocabulary. It's verb tenses (ordinary, perfect, pluperfect, and all the rest) are, I am informed, a particular complication (almost in the sense the word is used in timepiece design). Fluent speakers find them non-trivial, unless they think carefully about it, and casual speech is a poor guide to good writing with complex temporality.

The extensive discussion you reference (which I haven't found with a brief search -- but thanks for the pointer to the conventions policy article -- to the contrary notwithstanding. It can happen that several folks can jointly get themselves caught in an untenable situation. And inertia from that point often has a substantial large effect, regardless of merit. You may r4ecall the horse designed by a committee -- the one with the two humps, nostril flaps, and propensity to spit?

If you want to help us expand the wiki and improve the language, other than changing the accepted tempus, you're welcome to do so. If you're another guy who wants to start a crusade for the present tense, go start your own wiki and stop wasting our time.

No, I'm not another "such guy". On this or any other time wasting crusade, with the sole exception (see my contribution history at en:Wikipedia if you are willing to endure mass typos and lots of obiter dicta) with regard to a commitment to good writing and intelligiblity for the Average Reader. How you spend your time with respect to my attempted contributions, and how your regard its expense, is, of course, up to you. The personal animus (which may be) shining through here is not a WP sort of thing, though Wikia may have a different perspective.

Next point: the main objective of a wiki article is to be accessible and reliable, which is why I will continue to press for references and see to it that articles don't get overly long and detailed – the fact that the rabbit did adapt well to life on Manticore is not relevant for the already overlong treecat article, especially since rabbits have their own one.

Sorry if I sound harsh here again, but I'm getting sick and tired of having this discussion every time a self-declared expert from Wikipedia who obviously has no experience with wikia fiction wikis comes over here and tells us how we have to do things.

-- SaganamiFan (Talk) 17:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility depends, among other things, on good writing. The verb pattern use in this article when I found it is NOT good writing; it is awkward at minimum, however ostensibly coherent is the policy which required it. It is that policy which is problematic and not the urge for accessiblity or for good writing. As for overly long, well, opinions differ. Treecats, as presented in the Canon, are complex in themselves and their interactions and implications for much in the Honorverse are as well. An article about them should reflect this 'reality'. Hard to say just what is too long. Or inadequately short. As for the rabbit, it wasn't (as I recall) in the Wikipedia article for which I was primarily responsible. And their treatment here was somewhat lumpy however they arrived -- I smoothed it out a bit rather than removing it. I more or less agree with your position, though.

You do sound 'harsh', and 'sick and tired'. The hostility is ill conceived, by Wikipedia standards, and would suggest a Wikibreak there. I will not engage in hostilities here; disagreement and debate yes, but not that. A concern for my own time, perhaps... We are in these enterprises hostage to the good will of all, and I decline to participate when that goes badly. You may see an example of this at Talk:Password Strength on en:Wikipedia. If you choose to behave otherwise, I will leave Treecat and the Honorverse Wiki. Your choice, in essence.

I've certainly not claimed any experience on Wikia and have made no non-collegial edits on the only article I can recall spending any time on here. I have told neither you, nor anyone else, "how you have to do things". That you can say so suggests a willingness to start up absent staircases, and that you are certainly correct about "sick and tired" and "harshness". Your choice with respect to cooperation with an Honorvese aficionado who sees things not exactly as you wish them to be seen. Wikipedia ww 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought about changing my statement a little where the tone is concerned, but I stopped doing that back when I was on Wikipedia. Seems kind of dishonest to me... anyways, from your comments it is clear that you are fine with discussing things at length before beginning to change articles all over the place, and that is more than I can say of most people who came over from WP. Please rest assured that I'm not trying to drive you away, and I'm not gonna play the big Admin, as I detest that behaviour on WP.

As stated before, I'll have to look around where the awkwardness of the narrative present tense is concerned, as this has never been mentioned by any native speaker on any wiki where I read discussions on that matter. I find that the policy solves a number of problems that make in-universe articles awkward (this and this are some examples of discussions on the matter) and am a proponent of the "content over form" policy.

I hope you understand that I am hestitant to change a policy that a great many people agree on because one person claims it's unreadable for native speakers. And I hope you'll forgive me my little outbursts now and then, I know I have a tendency for them, and I'll try to do better :-)

-- SaganamiFan (Talk) 13:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the MA discussion on use of tense in their articles. The arguments boil down to two types as I see it. The first is a logical one, something akin to our perspective in this encyclopedia is this time period and we should use the tense with respect to that perspective. Or when describing action which took place in a defined period of time we should act as though we were a fly on the wall and use present tense. Or something similarly reason based. The other type of argument is basically, it's linguistically wrong because it sounds awkward. As we are writing for a Gentle Reader, we should not put them off by awkwardness. Some awkwardness is inevitable when describing events over several thousand years (old Earth history, to the settlement of the Star Kingdom, to the latest known events in and around the MA's Oyster Bay. But I suggest that consistency is overrated in this case. An article about, say, Treecats, should not be awkward to the ear, lest the Gentlr Reader be off put. And, in any cae, I don't see MA's situation as entirely applicable. Their series are less character bound than Weber's, if only because based on independent TV serials produced, acted, written by different folks. Weber imposes a kind of unity on this one, modulo authorial continuity slips and slops. Still clangs to the fluent speaking ear, and seriously so. And all the discussion did not, as nearly as I can tell, actually reach a policyu decision. Various folks at various times announced such a decision, and none that I found received much support. Still up in the air there, on the basis of this record. Perhaps not relevant ot here however, whatever decision is (or hasn't) adopted there.

Glad to see that you're policing my edits. For typos alone, I seem to need a keeper. Why are they invisible? To the writer, I mean. Wikipedia ww 04:15, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

(It's obvious) I'm a not a native speaker/wrighter and from perspective of my native langage (Polish) any descriptions in present tenses concerning Honorverse (or any "future" fiction, are really ankward, and similar to teenagers' way with words). I can be wrong, but our "past tenses policy" some way can be related with passive voice (many years passed since the end of my formal education).--dotz 19:16, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Were there a Polish Honorverse wiki, I'd be hopeless. I know only one phrase and it's not suitable. But in this instance, we are writing not for ourselves, but for a Gentle Reader. And since we are here, in some sense, publishing we cannot rely entirely on casual phrases and meaning sketched more than actually stated. There should be a certain formality to our writing, and that suggests we observe certain standards. Just which, well... In the case of the tenses I've spoken of here, the fluent English ear just hears clang and clunk with the policy as carried out. Not good writing and doesn't meet this suggested standard for a certain formality.

There is no good solution, given the fact that the events described are taking place in an imaginary future time (not yet completed -- HH may yet die), and yet English has a present tense usage which fits some of this. It is horribly clanging to hear chess discussed as if it had ceased to exist at some point. The usual English convention is what I mentioned above as the 'fiction present tense'. It's found in novels in describing circumstances, background, etc and is not entirely out of place in an enterprise such as this. It leads to oddities, but the question is not really what doesn't, but which policy reads better most of the time. English has a large number of tenses (some of which look the same as others for some reason) and fluent use of them is one of the oddest corners of an odd language. Most people were baffled when they studied the more exotic flavors in school, and nearly all have abandoned any pretense at worrying about the problem in practical life. This is inadequate for us as we're not dealing with practical life, but with the somewhat formal publishing sort of thing I mentioned above.

You may be able to suggest a parallel instance in Polish. I certainly cannot. Piotrus is likewise originally Polish as I understand it, and he may have an idea or two for constructing tense conundrums in Polish.

And I think some of this discussion would be well moved off of SF's talk page. As you noted (below) it's become something of a discussion forum. Ideas how to do so? Wikipedia ww 08:13, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Well, forgot about Polish. A historian writes like this [1] (SF will be probably so kind to move that discusson elsewhere).--dotz 16:48, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Completing a change of your talk page into forum let me add some side issues:

• Our tempus principle could be stated somewhere on the main page, something like "we are (crazy)(quasi-)historians paying a tribut to Kalpriades and Hester McReynolds". I hope such mission statement would let to avoid some misunderstandings and disputes.
• Long articles are less attractive to read (even mine). The best compromise is to extract suitable sections as separate articles and leave a link there (eg. section title, short note and link to a main article). Good example is treecats physiology (we will know about it more and more).
• Last but not least - you guys got me interested in treecats.
• BTW - where can I find list of treecats deleted from WP? (not present at deletionpedia)

dotz 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Preview button

People, could you please make a little more use of the preview button before you safe your edits? Its really no problem if there's a typo now and then, but things like "Star Knigdom of Manticore" or "Sile4ian Confederacy" (happens to all of us all the time) are rather easy to spot and avoid that way. I'm really spending too much time correcting that kind of stuff.

Best regards and Death to Mesa! -- SaganamiFan 08:24, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account present course of the plot Alliance, Haven, Leage and other decent nation will be in alliance with Mesa and Alignment, because some real real threat will apper (eg. Klingons). --dotz 09:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

My money is on Species 8472... or maybe Cylons! --- SaganamiFan 09:12, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

BTW I can see "das Boot" problem (ships referred as "it") :))--dotz 09:13, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I know, just sounds strange to me... in Germany we sometimes refer to ships as female, but never in writing... -- SaganamiFan 12:08, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thats Why I try to put the vessel rather than it or at least I try to mix it up a bit. Besides what wrong with the Star Knigdam of Manticore, I used to have property there and the Sile4ian Confederacy were a rowdy group of guys, but they were nice. --Farragut79 21:20, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

5,000 Article Milestone

What is the 5,000th article? Congrats guys, we have reached a good milestone that places us in the top wikis with the number of articles. --Farragut79 14:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

The honor goes to the article Justin Loyola, author DarkScribe. At what seems like a very long time ago, I said I expect us to become the predominant internet source on the Honorverse. I would say we have reached this goal, even though there is always a lot more to do. Congrats to everyone, love working with u guys!!! -- SaganamiFan 15:00, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

One objective reached. Now onto the next. I don't know about everyone else, but I think it would be cool if this site were like Star Trek's Memory Alpha. 32.000 articles. Let's be about it! -- DarkScribe 17:52, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

To reach that goal DW must write a lot more books! :-) Also, didn't they say they wanted to make HH into a movie or a television miniseries some time ago? -- SaganamiFan 21:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. I am optimist - here we got still 629 wanted pages. --dotz 22:54, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia / Future

I don't wanna alarm you or anything, I just want to draw your attention to some recent developments concerning our hosting service, Wikia. Maybe some of you have already heard that Wikia is currently beta-testing a new look and new features for all its services. In the long run, this may lead to all wikia wikis looking much more the same, and the whole design becoming more commercialized (some of the beta-versions look realy ugly IMHO). This has already led some wiki communities, like the Simpsons Wiki, where I am also a regular contributor, to move to new hosts like ShoutWiki, which offer very much the same services, but often with less advertisments and need for a "common" look.

Again, I don't wanna speak for or against a move at this point, I merely wanna draw your attention to the issue, as I feel we'll have to talk about this in the future, and I'd like everyone to be well informed. -- SaganamiFan 23:15, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I am warned. My ideal place for wiki is safe www site, but with no/really limited advertisment. I'll check Spimsons wiki. --dotz 06:53, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Okay I officially hate the new look... couldn't even use the site with it, that's why I changed it back to monaco, but in November, this will no longer be an option... why did they change the width to half the screen?!? What do I have a f***ing 16:10 widescreen monitor for?? The Articles are only about a fifth of the screen width on my computer! If these changes go through, I'll definitelly move the Safehold Wiki to another service, and I'll have a lot less enthusiam working here... -- SaganamiFan 14:25, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I am affected by the new look also. Are that changes definite? --dotz 14:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either. --Farragut79 16:40, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I'm currently checking out ways to move the wiki to another provider. I'll hope to have a few actions together soon, and will present them to you guys. The easiest would be to transfer to another wikifarm, but there are other options... of course we'll have to talk about this a lot.

And of course we also have to talk about everyone's feelings about the recent changes, personally, I'm getting sick and tired of Wikia and the way they disrespect the community and force changes on us that nobody asked for. Also, I have witnessed Wikia staffers sabotaging discussion pages where users discussed changing the provider. They're obviously afraid of using advertising money...

Anyway, at this point I'm very thankful for your thoughts. Yours, -- SaganamiFan 03:16, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the new look is horrible. Someone at Wikia said, "Lets web2.0 the site!" and it really doesn't work! I may not be here every day, but I do swing by from time to time and this will put me off. SaganamiFan, is there anything I can do to help with regards to a relocation? GodricVXR 20:24, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

I am not that fond of the new (Oasis) look, but I keep my preferences for Monobook, which is not so bad. But talking of that, I see that both Common.css and Monobook.css had been deleted. There are a couple of changes that would be improve the display for Monobook viewers.--Samanda 16:24, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Date Retcon

Well people, it seems that much of the timeline, especially surrounding the early history of Manticore and the monarchy, is being retconned because DW and Baen have mixed up notes and the dates from UHH that we use are an early version that was never meant for publication.

This post by DW on the Weber Forums gives new dates for the Great Plague as well as the exact day the Harrington Clan came to the Star Kingdom. As Duckk and John964 have already pointed out in the forum, a lot of other dates mentioned in the series don't add up as well, so the timeline will likely be completely overhauled according to DW's tech bible.

This will mean a lot of work sorting out the right dates (the Honorverse Compendium coming out in 2013 should help a bit...) and personally I would like to not just have the articles show the current canonical date, but also give references to older, retconned dates.

The in-universe explanation for some of the errors should'nt be that difficult, as people mix up dates all the time, especially from hundreds of years ago...

Also, congrats to everyone for over 6000 articles! -- SaganamiFan 13:08, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Congrats.--dotz 19:16, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. --Farragut79 04:18, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Wiki layout and content

It would be appreciated if name of book or story were noted where caracter first appeared or written about.

This would greatly assist those of us reading the series for the first time.

Thank you -- Solus2sail 20:50, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I moved this from the article space. In general, the reference tags at the end of descriptions give a pretty good picture of when a character first showed up. If you use the wiki on a regular basis, you should familiarize yourself with the reference abbreviations and the reading order. Best, -- SaganamiFan 20:44, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Ship Class Categories

I think we should consider removing the word "ship" from the detailed class categories; it serves no purpose and makes the category names longer and kind of silly. "Manticoran Destroyer Ship Classes" should be "Manticoran Destroyer Classes" etc. -- SaganamiFan 11:12, June 23, 2012 (UTC)