Talk:The Softwire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...except JT has one oddity[edit]

Kethra-- Originally you wrote: "...except he talks". You will notice immediately that I altered your languge into "communicates telephatically". This is an incredibly big difference. Which is it? I am under the impression that a human softwire is someone who is different than the others. If JT merely talks to Mother, why is it that others are incapable of the same? Toby Ornott (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop copyediting, Toby. (I read your remarks on K's talkpage and agree.) Your corrections are a much needed enhancement. You and Kethra work well together. I look forward to a completed project. Anne Teedham (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers[edit]

I noticed that a spoilers tag was added on one of the summaries. Is that necessary? Would it be better to exclude blatant spoiler points from the summary?--Kethra{talk} 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ho, K-- I looked, yet did not see, the spoiler tag. However, I read through the details in The Spoiler Issue and agree with the guiding principals behind (a) reader beware: (b) Wikipedia tells all. Will you provide me with a link to the specific placement, showing me how, when, where the tag was applied? I'll see if I can find it in the history. (edit: I found it [1]. I see no real problem with having it. As a matter of fact, I believe that (SPOILER) should be wikified. Necessary? No, not really. Appropriate? Yes, indeed. It is a mere courtesy to the reader (although, so far, Virus on Orbis 1 does not truely destroy a reader's appetite for the book for, after all, the plot details are so baffling that I imagine most readers of the Wikipedia article will say hmmmmm. This sounds peculiar....; and p.s. I haven't read into the synopsis of Betrayal on Orbis 2 yet so I can't say whether or not my desire to read the books has been spoiled. Do you know what I mean? I think what I am trying to say is that: As far as I have read so far, my interest in the novels has been generally hightened, not spoiled. I am going to wikify it and put it back in for now. Let's see how big an issue its placement and subsequent removal becomes.) Toby Ornott (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that it shouldn't be there, period. IE The spoiler warning. Wikipedia does not include spoiler warnings, as the person who removed the warning put in his/her edit summary. I probably should have just removed it myself when I noticed it there, but it seems like someone keeps adding it back in, so I left a note here on the talk page. --Kethra{talk} 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well well, It looks like the consensus is 50/50 right now:
173.49.151.21 20:21, 14 January (ON)
J.delanoy 20:24, 14 (ON)
Tony Sidaway 09:27, 15 (OFF)
Toby Ornott 16:50, 15 (ON)
TheFarix 04:35, 16 (OFF)
Kethra (OFF)
Before the issue was raised, it was a "non issue" to begin with for me; so it looks as though J.delanoy and 173.49.151.21 are the current advocates FOR. Someone named Slakr (see here) has pointed 173 in the right direction of the guidelines, and it looks as though J.delanoy is an Administrator with over two years experience. I believe it would be worthwhile to ask J.delanoy to elaborate here, on the talkpage. What say you? Toby Ornott (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed it so much I reclassified its ratings to B. I agree that the summaries are clouded in enough mysteries that a reader will not be spoiled by their depth. On the other hand, I believe strongly that the 3rd summary should be shortened greatly when it is written. Two reasons -- first, the reading of the summaries is becoming exhausting; and second, if the 3rd summary goes into the same kind of detail, it could conceivably spoil Haarsma's fans who have read previously books one and two. On this latter matter, I would suggest not writing the summary until a year after publication. Perhaps a very good, short blurb (similar to a publisher's blurb) could be written shortly after the March 2009 release -- but the writer must be mindful of Wikipedia's guidelines on advertising spam. Another evaulation that I have is the subsection Rings of Orbis. I believe that a single sentence (or phrase) should be written to describe each of the varied races, and the characters' roles. Once again, brevity should be a guideline. Another thought is, a CRITICAL REVIEW subsection. Although it is premature at the moment to evaluate Haarsma's series, by the time the 3rd book is on the stands, his universe, his stylistic writing, and his philosophy ought to be fair game for a very good reviewer. From reading through summaries one and two, I have a feeling that Haarsma will be compared, challenged, and criticized by his peers within the genre. ThsQ (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honine picture[edit]

Just a note - I noticed the Honine image was moved to this article from PJ Haarsma. The Honine species art was done especially for the game, Rings of Orbis. That's why I had it in the game section of PJ's article, as it was an example of the game art. I will probably be moving it back unless you can justify the move a little more--Kethra{talk} 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, I really do not think that it illustrates the game as much as it depicts the species from the Series. As I stated above, I believe an image of the Samiran would be far more appropriate...but since I do not have access to any of the source material, I suggest that you try finding something of the Samiran. I just finished altering everyting on the image-file page so you will need to revert my alterations if you move the image back to PJ Haarsma...but as I said I really do not think that the honine illustrates the game anymore than (or as well as) it illustrates the Series. Additionally, I think that the PJ Haarsma article does not suffer from its loss at the moment because I feel that the PJ article is a bit over illustrated. By this, I mean that PJ's textual material does not seem to justify as many images as were used. Anything that you decide is fine with me. I think that your two articles are very well-written, and I'd like to see both nominated for the Good Article rating soon. A nice third-party opinion may be interesting at this juncture (our gentle difference of opinions). Or even a WP:RFC to generate a bunch of different opinions. The more the merrier always returns good input, I think. ThsQ (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would that I could get a Samarin image! Thank you for explaining your justifications. The reason I added an image to PJ's article was that it was suggested in a peer review as a good move in order to make the article Good Article material. The game is hard to illustrate as it's not a graphic game, as many online games are these days. I mean, it has graphics, but it's more textual and browser interface based. I've been meaning to delve more into the game and provide a better description, as it's not clear how Rings of Orbis differs from other games kids are playing these days. I don't think we need to involve anyone else, as I was just curious as to your opinion. I do have plans to add more imagery to The Softwire, specifically in a Publication History section, as the first edition of the first novel had a different cover than the current cover - and the first additions sold out and had to go into reprint. I need to get specific dates and sources before I add that, though. Thanks for your opinion and for your contributions to both of these articles! --Kethra{talk} 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K-- Are there illustrations in the various books? Maybe kudniks or Nagools to keep it consistent with the DYK tag above? I am not overly excited by the book jackets. Toby Ornott (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The books aren't illustrated. All of the art (besides the covers) was done for Rings of Orbis. There are pictures of Neewalkers, Keepers, and a few others, but no Nagools. The knudniks are just the slaves, not really a race. The children themselves are knudniks.--Kethra{talk} 19:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly like the idea of breaking up the long exposition created by the summaries, and wonder: "Could we call the 'horribly gross' Guarantor who lives in glop, a honine?" Or, in other words: until we can find a more suitable image for The Softwire, can we cheat a little bit, rephrase the description in both the image caption, and in the Guarantor's text by calling him a honine? Is there any way that you could get Haarsma to supply you with some of these missing details—for example, names for the wormhole, the underground railroad, and a spooky, alien image for the storyline? Toby Ornott (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Toby and Mr. Theo Quissenberry on this one. I think the exposition of Synopsis needs a break up. I see no problem with the way it is done presently, and the graphic can be replaced as soon as something more appropriate becomes available. An image of Toll would be perfect. I like also the suggestion to reduce the third summary into a quick, simple synopsis in expectation of the fourth summary, which could then be written around a single, most "representative scene", and then set the stage for a very detailed, criticism of the entire series. I hope the publisher is paying close attention to these Wikipedia articles, and their suggestions. It would be fantastic if Candlewick Press illustrated the fourth novel with illustrations from the various artists. Something like this could evolve into a special, Collecter's Series Edition with Illustrations, much like the Scribner's classics illustrated by N.C. Wyeth. Anne Teedham (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's a Neewalker look like? That would be good. But probably not as dynamic as Toby's suggestion, as his idea incorporates the text with the image quite well. Wikipedia likes that sort of thing. ThsQ (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Underground railroad[edit]

Toby, mate, good of you to bring up the subject of the underground railroad. I doubt that that wikilink to the U.S. Civil War era "Underground Railroad" is an appropriate one. As I interpreted the use of the wikilink, a reader, as soon as he links into that Wikipedia article on the "underground railroad", will undoubtedly scratch his head in bewilderment. It's sort of similar to using The Time Machine (1960 film) to explain Special relativity. In my mind, Kethra needs to write a more appropriate definition of Haarsma's sci-fi analogy using the service of the WP:Wiktionary, and then link off to her more appropriate definition. I considered unlinking the wikilink, but decided against it for the moment, as the issue has not been raised by anyone other than yours truly. ThsQ (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link to the underground railroad article, and replaced it with a better explanation of what I was trying to convey. "Toll takes JT to Toll Town, located deep within the depths of the Samiran tank. Toll Town is a secret hub from which operations are run to free knudniks from their Guarantors and get them passage off of Orbis."--Kethra{talk} 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The additional remarks on the underground work for me, but the additions to the characters is more than what I think you need. Much of what you are adding is previously known. I would suggest just simple phrasing. For example,
  • Johnny "JT" Turnbull -- the very first human softwire
  • Ketheria Turnbull -- his mute sister, wiser than her years
  • Theylor -- discovers JT's extraordinary gift
  • Madame Lee -- marches her army of Neewalkers against Magna
  • Switzer -- attempts a space jump
  • Vairocina -- Vairocina, the gentle virus
  • Toll -- threatens to flood Core City with the oceans of Orbis
  • ...and so forth ThsQ (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switzer[edit]

"Switzer -- attempts a space jump and dies soon after"

Since he didn't really die, should I remove this? 97.124.67.64 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be "disappears" soon after.--Kethra{talk} 22:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two book questions[edit]

1, Why aren't books 3 and 4 mentioned or covered ?

2. I noticed that on recent reprints, it mentions that the 'Softwire' books are part of the "Spectrum universe." What is the "Spectrum universe" and are there books in that 'series'? 2600:8800:395:B000:7DAF:72F:A8B1:B2FB (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Softwire&oldid=1218527079"