Talk:List of characters in the Honorverse

Important (from WP:FICTION)

 * 1) Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).
 * 2) Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
 * 3) It is useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there.

Old talk
The article needs missing names from books 1-4, as well as the spinoffs and anthologies.

Names from F to Z need to be reformatted to fit the standard set in A-E.

There are too few details on many of the names. Each probably needs a minimal description including: ship(s)/station(s) served upon, positions held, participated battles/operations, and important family/business relationships.

Question: should a physical description be included, if available?

In addition to this list, it might be a good idea to create separate lists for each book, aimed at avoiding plot spoilers (such as the mere fact that a character survives for several more books). Should this wait until the current list is comprehensive of all the relevant books?

You can contribute to this article by helping complete reference information (A-J names have been completed)

Updates
All characters should have a reference info - which book(s) they appeared in. I have expanded this with a list from my old website (see summary for link, now in Internat Archive). Another old website to be assimilated: .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think you're not quite taking it far enough. I think that for minor characters, there should be at least the book reference and a chapter reference. Major, reoccurring characters would not of course need such treatment. LP-mn (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To do

 * transform this ugly list into a nice looking one. I suggest basing it on List of Star Trek characters. We will obviously have no picture, I'd also suggest replacing rank and position with short description and adding info on in which books (short stories) character appreared in
 * You want us to do a table?

Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * technical note: Adam Smith is preffered to Smith, Adam or  (brrr...)
 * should we ilink all characters, or only major ones? Ilinking all will give us lots of red links but will allow us to spot some newly created stubs (or disambis in need of creation). It will also save us the need to ilink an article once it is created...
 * Linking everything will be a major pain in the neck. I think we would be better off looking for orphaned articles with Google, and not worrying too much about the disambigs.  --*Kat* 02:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think you are right. I have created the table, now we need to expand it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kewl. You know, something that would make it "prettier" is if we used icons to denote things like Havenite, Manticoran, and Andermandi.  We could have variations of those icons to denote other things like Navy, Politician.  Just a brainstorm. --*Kat* 09:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I thought about it, but we have basically no graphics we can use :( I recently uploaded a tiny flag of mantiocre, but it's a pain to work with so few images. It would be great if we had a logo for each nation and organization, and for the ships, a silhouette with size depending on class...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being gone for so long. Since we don't have any graphics to use, why don't we make some? -- *Kat* 06:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A remark about "Deacon" Anders: I checked the electronic copies of my books and I found nothing there to suggest that "Deacon" is anything else than his title, much less his first name. --jaellee 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Article uses the abbreviation GR, we need to note what it stands for. I infer "Grayson", can anyone confirm or deny this?  Hersbruck (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hersbruck Nice thread necromancy. Where is it used, exactly? Your analysis is plausible. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Useful tool
For those who don't know, all Honor books are searchable online, however the database access is restricted for obvious reasons. For adress, login and pass ask on Baen's Bar, Honorverse or BuShip sections.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

abbreviation table unreadable
The table of abbreviations is an admirable idea, but is questionable in execution. It is unreadable in several respects. Not being a table code maven, I'll merely note problem and hope someone who is will attempt a repair. ww 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that as much as it is user friendly, it is editor unfriendly. Not the first time I wish more people demanded the Wikipedia:Table: namespace and editor...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm working on creating a better table. But I won't replace the one with have with one that is any less user friendly.--*Kat* 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Table is fixed
Happy? :-) --*Kat* 05:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good.

Good job!
Good job! If we tidy this up further, perhaps we have a chance at WP:FL.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to nonexistent articles
Several of the names are linked to articles that don't exist. Did they exist at one point and get deleted, or was someone thinking those particular characters deserved their own pages? I think ideally the links should be removed unless/until the corresponding articles are actually created. -- Heptite (T)   (C)   (@)  07:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Red links, usually, indicate articles in need of creation and should be retained unless one think they are not notable. On that subject, I think quite a few of existing character stubs are minor characters, not notable, that should be merged into this list.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's the harm in keeping them?--*Kat* 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am far from deletionist, but see . Some of them may get proded and deleted, without us noticing, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically this is the concern I have with the linked names--both for those that have articles and those that don't; most of them aren't important characters and don't really deserve their own article, and there are several "major" characters that aren't linked at all. -- Heptite (T)   (C)   (@)  04:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and delinked several red-links for names I personally felt should never be their own article. Some of the linked names link to very short articles that should probably just be merged with this list. -- Heptite (T)   (C)   (@)  08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
While trying to add book references I've noticed there's quite a few inconsistencies in the article (not necessarily errors, though I'm sure there's plenty of those as well). Examples: The syntax used in the descriptions is very haphazard. Several of the descriptions have names that are linked to other sections, but not always. Honor's name spelled out in many places, is HH in others, and is sometimes linked.... It goes on. I will try to gradually fix problems, but I could sure use help. -- Heptite (T)   (C)   (@)  08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another new table
I tried to create a new table to hold the book title names, and while it looks great, the Explanation of Abbreviations table keeps trying to float next to it. Nothing I have tried has fixed the problem. If its not fixed by the end of the week, I'm all for reverting it, but hopefully some bright person can figure out where I went wrong. --*Kat* 06:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

proposed merge here of list of treecats
There is now a tag suggesting merger of the treecat list article with this one. The edit comment suggests that it would be a return to the parent article. This is a misapprehension. The orginal article from which that list was extracted is treecat (see the talk). It has never at any time been a part of the present article.

While treecats are (or two in particular) full characters, and those of the rest who have been identified probably belong in the present list for completeness, the list of treecat article, and the annotations which it contains are somewhat out of step with this article. Too complete, no list of books in which appear, etc. That list was specially crafted as a sort of oppendix to the treecat article and the annotationw were originally intended to supplement it, partially to avoid too much detail in the article itself, and partly to avoid spoilers, insofar as possible.

By all means transfer in the treecat characters to this article, but the content in the treecat list article should not be lost. I myself think it ought to be restored to its orignal position and purpose in the treecat article.

Comments from others?? ww 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * makes sense to me.--*Kat* 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * disagree, that article is 145 kbs long, adding will only make it longer--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no hard and fast length limit on articles. This objection is off point a bit. We are writing an encyclopedia, whose virtue is clarity for the Reader, not minimum use of storage bits. ww 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was source of the merge proposal. Apologies for my misinterpretation of where the other list came from.  The format of this main character list is excellent and comprehensive; my hope and intent was that the treecat list should be included herein and brought up to this standard.  I think it would be unwieldy in the treecat article, and merging that direction would still allow two non-overlapping lists of characters.  I'd do the merging myself, but there's information missing to fill in the needed chart entries, and I'm not familiar enough with the setting.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 13:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you now suggest. If it is to add treecat characters to the Honorverse list, I concur. The current list of treecats is poorly formatted for this however, and containe information not suited to the Honverse list. With a good bit of editing perhaps... There is no reason I can see to avoid overlaping. Parsimon is a virtue, but can be overdone. I still favor reinclusion in the treecat artciel. ww 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, merge sound good. They are already in our list anyway, it's just the case of moving descriptions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * removed merge notice. It's been quite a while. Most of the cats have been included here in any case. ww 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

HH mother of two?
The short section on Honor Harrington concludes with the sentence 'Mother of two.'. My reading of "At All Costs" indicates that she only has one child. Does anyone have areference for 'two'? Murray Langton (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

See the bottom half of page two of "An Authorial Note" (http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/SS.EMS/DavidWeber.pdf), in it David Weber refers to Honors two children: Raoul and Katherine. LP-mn (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Raoul is the child of Honor and Hamish. Katherine is the child of Emily and Hamish. Throughout the books children are referred to as the child of whatever parental unit is interacting with them, regardless of the bio-ties. The Alexander's triad marriage results in 2 mothers, Honor and Emily, and each of them have two children, their own and their sister-wife's child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarafinadh (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Q re 'Storm from the Shadows'
Does 'Storm from the Shadows' count as a Main Honor Harrington Series book, or as a Saganami Island series book? I'd like to add information about it, but I hesitate to decide which category to select... LP-mn (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

''I've created a new "REFERENCES" chart at my sandbox. _AFTER_ you've formed an opinion on the above question, check my sandbox and let me know which section it belongs in. INTERNAL WIKIPEDIA LINK HERE.

For those of you who have not already seen it, you may want to look at this page-- SPOILER WARNING!!! EXTERNAL WEB LINK HERE

Also, there is a very good reason why I listed two book numbers in a row (wink!).

Since writing the above as well as finding the link to the previous question re HH's two children, I've finished reading "An Authorial Note". It implies, almost explicitly states, that "Mission of Honor" is the next main stream book and that "Storm from the Shadows" is a Saganami Island book. As such, I intend to update the references chart (before the end of this weekend) with said information unless I hear an objection.'' LP-mn (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

New References page uploaded. LP-mn (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I updated the table of books in the Honorverse article. Imported it over here. Did you realise it figures in 9 articles (here, Honorverse and 7 more)? Debresser (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

split the various alphabet lists up into groups of ROUGHLY ten (10) each?
Would anyone mind if I split the various alphabet lists up into groups of ROUGHLY ten (10) names per sub-list? LP-mn (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Try it, and we will see how it looks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a crack at it. LP-mn (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus and others-- This is a BEAR of a project. Please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LP-mn/Sandbox (User:LP-mn/Sandbox?). I've done the letters A and B. Before I continue, I'd like to know if this will be used, or if I'm wasting my time. LP-mn (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus-- (RESPONDING TO YOUR COMMENT ELSEWHERE)-- I am willing to do the work of splitting up the sections (User:LP-mn/Sandbox). My (other) question to you was meant to be, will my work actually be USED? I don't want to do it only to find out that others object and it gets tossed out. I have my own reasons why I'd like to make html links that get one closer to the relevant entry in the wiki list. LP-mn (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Page splitting/redesign finished. I hope people like it.
Done. Page splitting/redesign finished. I hope people like it. LP-mn (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New shortcut bar inserted at letters A, B, Y & Z. Comments???
Does anybody have any comments about the shortcut bar I've inserted at four locations? If people like, it, I can keep pasting it in. If it's a flop, please let me know. LP-mn (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

SI2, Ch. 14
"We're due to dine with Baroness Medusa and Mr. Van Dort this evening, Milady," Khumalo said. "At that time, I have no doubt that she and Mr. O'Shaughnessy — and Commander Chandler, my intelligence officer — will be as eager as I am to hear everything you can tell us about the situation at home and this proposed summit meeting between Her Majesty and Pritchart. And I'm also confident that the Baroness and Mr. O'Shaughnessy well have a rather more detailed briefing for you on the political side of events here in the Cluster. I mean, Quadrant." LP-mn (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is slightly embarrassing. I'm the one who wrote the above, and I have no idea why, or what it means and/or refers to. LP-mn (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's part of the new book Storm from the Shadows. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The content in Rafael Cardones is very small, even for a stub. It goes along the same lines as the description of him in this article. So in my opinion that article should be merged into this one. And isn't that precisely the function of this article? Your opinions please. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just did that. Think it looks good. Debresser (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the list of books at the 'List of Honorverse Characters' page?
What happened to the list of books at the 'List of Honorverse Characters' page? It's integral to the understanding of the page's abbreviations. I hope it was deleted by mistake, and not someone's editing decision. LP-mn (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For the answer, and the following discussion, please see my talk page. Debresser (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

DISCUSS: Use clips of David Mattingly's cover artwork; permission HAS been granted
I recently received an E-mail response from David Mattingly that stated he would grant permission to post clippings of his portrayals of individual characters that he has featured on his Honorverse artwork.

Some of these are featured at http://www.davidmattingly.com/Pages/HONORHA.html

This is NOT going to be a high priority project for me, but I figured I should bring it up so that it can be discussed.

Examples of things to discuss:

http://www.davidmattingly.com/Pages/Honor_Harrington/HONORSHORT.html It's clear who the two characters are in the background. (I forget now, I'm too tired & it's late. One's a Ship Surgeon, the other a close friend.)
 * If you take a look at this image

http://www.davidmattingly.com/Pages/Honor_Harrington/HONORFIELD.html Mattingly himself is the best source for who is who.
 * On the other hand, if you look at this image

http://www.davidmattingly.com/Pages/Honor_Harrington/HONORFLAG..html has a lot of Honorverse fans portrayed as members of the Grayson Upper House of Keys (my terminology mish-mash), some of these David remembered who is who, some he did not.
 * and on the Third hand, a higher quality alternate version of this image

Before posting these images to specific character descriptions, we should discuss which ones to use for which characters, and which ones just do not have enough data to use at all.

LP-mn (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

excised table
*1* Short story in the anthology The Warmasters (multi-author multi-universe collection) republished in Changer of Worlds.

*2* Title (and little else) referred to by the Author (David Weber) in his 4-page An Authorial Note.

*3* and *4* FFI, see the FIRST and LAST sentence in Author's May 15, 2008 quote.

This was removed by user:debresser to be replaced by a nav template at the bottom of the page... but this is a legend/key, so that doesn't seem appropriate. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know there's some duplication, but the utility of the page is improved this way. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote you on your talk page, this table has been discontinued in all 9 articles that used (versions of) it. Please also notice that many editors of Honorverse articles have noticed this and none so far have seen fit to return it. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with recent reorganization of this article
Recent reorganization of the article and deletion of several articles in favor of entries here have some problems or potential problems.

In general minor characters probably need no more than an entry here. Major characters, however, don't well fit the tabular format. But this minor character is someone's majro character and this major character is someone else's minor character. And, in as yet unpublished books or stories, some minor character may attain majority. The difficulty as always, is in the interpretational details of the underlying policy.

I suggest a policy, to be included in the introduction somewhere, that when a character's entry becomes larger than, it be moved to a new page and a pointer left here to that page. This has the virtue of at least changing argument from whether so and so is minor or not to is there enough to justify a separate article.

Comments from the peanut gallery, as DW labels his invited comments? ww (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea is a good one, but those of us who wag the wars with editors who propose from time to time to delete one article or the other know how thin the ice is under almost all of these articles. At least 80% of the article would be deleted if we were to apply wp:Notability or the proposed wp:Fiction seriously. For this reason, as I am one of those who have this experience, I would recommend to refrain from making new articles. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Self-censorship by editors for fear of unreasonable application of WP policies (which are, arguably, poorly conceived and implemented) is not a policy I can agree with. We must proceed to do whet we jointly think right, even in the face of the opposition foreseen above. I do not think this ia a reason for not implementing the proposed policy.
 * There are many editors who insist that their view of is the only view, and that other views are variously . These editors are not collegial ones, do not accord good faith to other WP editors, and often act as though they own this or that part of WP (eg, attitude in some articles, wording in these or some others, policy enforcement, ...). Such editors undermine the basic nature of WP and are regrettable. Still more regrettably, it is not possible to avoid them if WP is to remain an open enterprise. We must, perforce, live with them. I often think it's pretty much a case of two steps forward and 1.5 back. Nontheless, en.WP has become, in the blink of an eye, the largest reference work ever created by our species. It is unfortunate that a good bit of it is, in my view, trivial dreck, but ...
 * Can't agree. ww (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one can see both points of view. I can't say I have a strong opinion one way or the other, and remain able to be convinced.

At the risk of going off topic, can anyone think of a better way than the multiple sub-tables we currently are using? LP-mn (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

renewed proposal to merge list of treecats into this article
Unless some new reasons appear, it would seem that the result of the previous discussion (late 2006, see discussion section above) should govern this time as well. ww (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No merge, the list was deleted instead, per Articles for deletion/Treecat 70.29.213.241 (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Transwikification
The 09:45, April 25, 2009 (UTC) version of this article has been transwikified to the Honorverse Wiki in order to save its content from deletion. -- SaganamiFan 09:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.101.60 (talk)

Desc. versus Appearance... standard???
If you'll look at the entries for "Rozsak, Luiz" & "Angela Ryder", you'll notice that I've used different terminology for a character's Description/Appearance. Does anyone have an opinion as to which method is "better" or more "standard"? LP-mn (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you specify this here, please? Debresser (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are the examples... Is one "better" than the other? LP-mn (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC) LP-mn (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The only difference I noticed is that in Rozsak, Luiz you linked the book in the description and in the "Appeared in" column, while in Angela Ryder you linked the book only in the description. Is that it? Debresser (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I meant. In fact, I've now modified HH6 to be HH6 for the above example.  What I'm talking about is, I suppose you'd call it more 'subtle'.  Is the phrase "Appearance (WS02, Ch. 1): '...dark, trim man" better or worst than the phrase "Desc. from HH6, Ch. 17: "...as dark-haired as Hibson"?  I've used both methods, and would like to fix on just one method.  Opinions anyone???

LP-mn (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the column is called "Description" I think neither "Appearance" nor "Desc." is needed. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bouchard, Jerod
2 questions... What's wrong with the html-like "code" for this entry's last column? and Can anyone explain the data discrepancy? LP-mn (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC) LP-mn (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is because of the "enters" you used. Don't use them. That is what the  code is for. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... There must have been a "enter" or "carriage return" that I did not notice. I've taken it out now. So, you're saying that is what caused the earlier problem? Hmmm... I'll have to look out for that in the future. LP-mn (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Yup. You were right. There were two more instances of the same thing... LP-mn (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea what you mean by "I've taken it out now". I had fixed it already. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Table of SI2 characters not yet inserted into main article
See subject line.

LP-mn (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC) LP-mn (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC) merged in Ds Es and one F LP-mn (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC) LP-mn (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) .

Anton Zilwicki and other merges
OK, so it seems that Anton Zilwicki and other characters have had their pages deleted, but nobody has bothered to merge that content into this list. I did so, using the 'small' command with just Anton. This is getting crazy. All the wiki-police are making this even more of a clumbsy list. I wish there was an easy, obvious way to do it. The other merges will have to wait for another day. Comments anyone? LP-mn (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have only one comment: thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're welcome, but gratitude was not quite what I was looking for. Do you, or anyone else, have any suggestions for making the entries, and this entire article/list less clumbsy? (sp?) LP-mn (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

At All Costs - character list question
Has anybody taken the ENTIRE character list from the At All Costs book and merged it into the Honorverse Character List? LP-mn (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s.: My memory says that the SI1 character list has already been merged in by myself or someone else. Can anyone confirm?

LP-mn (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Helen and Helpern?
Does anyone know what happened to the "Appeared in" info for Helen and the "Description" for Helpern?

75.72.193.10 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More issues
Debresser (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Aren't Halsted and Halstead, Raymond the same?
 * 2) We have two Hearns, Abigail at the moment.
 * 3) Sonja Hemphill and Hemphill, Sonja are the same.
 * 4) We have three Michelle Henke's now.

Ruth Winton?
no love for ruth? i've given her a blank entry, anyone want to fill in some details? 199.89.103.10 (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
Several maintenance tags were removed by User:Fabartus inserting the "hidden" comment "This is about a best selling fictional universe which is not yet ancient and venerable enough to have attracted much scholarly work. It is at least as notable as Tolkien was in the sixties, and such references will come in time. In the meantime, don't be a DICK and hang useless tags which make us look bad just because you're ignorant". Tags are not useless, they alert editors to problems. "Such references will come in time": please see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. "At least as notable as Tolkien"... Please... I have all books from Weber (not just the Honorverse novels) as well as Tolkien's works, but those two really are not comparable. There have been lots of scholarly studies about Tolkien, I doubt there will be many about Weber, much as his books are well-crafted and hugely entertaining. Of course, I may be wrong, but that also goes for Fabartus. That is why we do not create articles before a subject becomes notable. Almost all Honorverse articles do not belong on WP and should be transwikified to the Honorverse wiki. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: It's certainly instructive to re-read the close of the AfD for this list. Evidently, that close has been ignored completely. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * removed comment--that should be on the talk page, not the article. In fairness, the fansite tag doesn't make sense.  The others are probably valid, though I'm not sure how a "list of characters" article for a series of books could be anything other than "in universe", so I'd lean toward removing that one too.  Hobit (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take out the fansite tag (which has been here since 2009, by the way), which indeed seems inappropriate. I do think that the in-universe tag is appropriate, though. Literary characters are pften the subject of scholarly articles or sometimes even books, or are at least discussed in critical works about the novels in which they appear. Using a real-world perspective in articles on fiction is, unfortunately, done for only a small minority those articles and definitely is a weak point for this whole section of WP. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hobit (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a problem but it is one without a solution as I don't believe 99%+ of these characters have scholarly articles on them. Reviews maybe, but I don't think the problem is solvable by editing.  I'd thus argue the maintenance tag isn't doing any good and should be removed. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take down the in-universe tag, too, although I think your argument is more general than just this list and would basically apply to every instance of the use of that tag... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed a similar comment from some other page. I'll post on his talkpage and refer him here. Basically, he shouldn't be leaving message on articles, and he should filter his language a little. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he was just blocked for a month. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)