Talk:Off Armageddon Reef

Prod tag removed
Great technicality; even though the prod tag was initially removed for completely spurious reasons (the person removing it couldn't be bothered to actually look at the criteria), it's acceptable to use that as a reason to keep it from being returned. How about dealing with the real problem, that it doesn't meet those criteria? Anybody want to actually address that? 71.204.176.201 (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict - I believe I've addressed your concerns adequately.)


 * Earlier today, an IP user converted the page to a redirect to David Weber with no discussion whatsoever. It was reverted by another editor, who then placed a notability tag on the article. The usual courtesey is to give tags at least a week, sometimes two, to give editors time to address concerns. Instead, TWENTY MINUTES LATER, a PROD was added. By removing the PROD, I was objecting to it being added so soon, among my other stated reasons. Per the notice on the PROD itself, You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. To have re-added the PROD is contrary to that wording, regardless of the reasons.


 * Deletion nominations are not for inexperienced Wikipedians, and users should exercise some discretion in making nominations. I sincerely hope this is not taken to AFD so soon after the other debacles today, but if it is, at least then it will be given a week to be improved, as the nom cannot delete it themselves. - BillCJ (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You assume (you know what they say about that word) that an IP editor is inexperienced. Yet more IP discrimination... And you still haven't addressed the criteria and how this article doesn't meet it. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I assume that any editor that redirects an article he feels is non-notable without any prior discussion, then adds a PROD 20 minutes after another editor restores the article with a notability without any discussion, is inexperienced - the IP was just a clue, as was your talk page. I'd say that even if you'd been registered. Unless there is something drastically wrong with an article, such as copyvio or BLP issues, they can usually be given time to be improved first. I intend to address the notability issues by adding the sources which prove notability, assuming they can be found. But I can't do that if the article is deleted or redirected. Anyway, I have other editing tasks to attend to tonight, and so it will be a few days till I can address them myself. Another editor may be able to improve it in the mean time. - BillCJ (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go assuming again, including the assumption that a prod tag doesn't allow for time to improve the article and that redirected articles can't be retrieved from history and improved. I tag articles based on their status when I look at them, not some hypothetical improvements that may happen. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As the editor who initially reverted the redirect tag, I did so because a cursory google search revealed this book was important and reviewed enough to satisfy the 1st criteria of WP:NB. I didn't have time to find sources myself, so I added the notability tag so that other editors would know it needed to be done. Thanks BillCJ for ensuring this book wasn't hastily deleted. -- Kweeket Talk 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki
To whom it may interest, there is now a wikia wiki on the Safehold universe. -- 134.102.101.60 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Series versus book
Safehold (series) is redirecting to this article, yet this article is on only one book of the series. I believe Safehold as a series needs its own page... or at least this page needs to reference the other books (it doesn't even mention them).64.134.64.105 (talk)


 * Definitely a worthy idea, although I am not sure the series as such is notable enough. The books are, but the series should be more than the sum of its books to be notable. Presently the series redirects here, because this is the first book in the series. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Though all of the books in the series have achieved ranking on the NYT Hardcover Fiction Best Seller list, so creating a series article which mentions that, as well as going briefly into the plots of each book, would be good. The series article could also contain a list of major characters in the series. It would be doable now that there are 4 best-selling books in the series. I may work on that in June sometime. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 01:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Always happy to see your good initiatives. :) Debresser (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the one that posted this idea originally, just figure I'd chime in now that I'm logged in. At least as a stop-gap, I think this article should at least provide links to the rest of the series. Drhamad (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome! There are links to the other books of the Safehold series inside the (collapsed) template at the bottom of the article. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, series article has been created. Feel free to improve it: Safehold. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Too long" tag
Begging your pardon, Debresser, but the book is 600 pages long. A 12-graf summary is not out of order, not for an article dedicated entirely to the book. I also made the Overview much more concise to compensate for my reworked summary. You would have an argument if we were talking about the series page, which itself contains extensive material on each individual book. Someone who has navigated to the book's specific page should not be deprived of a complete summary in the name of avoiding "excessive detail." This should be especially apparent given that the article had tags on it requesting work to flesh out various sections. I would have appreciated it if you had raised a point of discussion about your concerns before issuing a notice on the article itself asking for it to be edited down. Out of respect for other contributors to this article who may wish to add their input, I will leave the "too long" tag in place. SanSingularity (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even a book that long can be summarized in about 400-500 words. We don't need every little plot detail, just the general overview. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I admit that I've been responsible for a good portion of it in the last 2-3 years (not necessarily under this account, a practice I will avoid in the future), yet each of the other seven published books in this series have summaries of a comparable length. Also, I weighted this summary toward explaining the fairly complicated prologue and setup for the series, which must be understood by a reader before anything else makes sense. In fact, very few chapter-to-chapter details are present in the current Off Armageddon Reef summary. SanSingularity (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's understandable, but just because it is similar elsewhere doesn't mean it should be so here. Right now, the plot summary is around 1000 words long. That can definitely be cut down to no more than about 600 words if you try. 1000 words is too long for a general plot summary. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As the tagger, I obviously agree with Nihonjoe. Especially the general background (about the Gbaba) seems explained in too much detail in the new version. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if the background were split off into a separate section, combined with gentle paring-down of each respective new section? I am primarily interested in finding a compromise here that will get the tag removed on your terms. SanSingularity (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The background may be better in the Safehold article instead. All that needs to be mentioned here is that Nimue awoke from 800 years (I think, it's been a while since I read this book) in an android body. She then modified the android to appear as a male and named this persona "Merlin". Very little else needs to be included regarding the Gbaba in this article as it hardly comes into play in the main plot anyway. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the Gbaba should at least be mentioned in short, but a lengthy and detailed discussion is indeed better placed on the Safehold page. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They should definitely be mentioned, but all that is really known from this book is that they are aliens and want to wipe out humanity (and any other technologically-advanced intelligent life). Nothing more should be mentioned of them. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the tag as the new plot summary is just right. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So how about that Theme section? :P SanSingularity (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll need reliable sources discussing the themes to have a section discussing them here. Anything put in such a section would be considered original research without solid references. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 03:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

New changes
I think we have a potential compromise here in that the detailed review of the Federation war should not be deleted, but instead belongs in the Safehold article. I'll make a new section in that article and move it, thereby significantly shortening the summary present here. SanSingularity (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In the future, please state in your edit summaries where the text you're cutting from an article is going, and where the text you're adding to an article is coming from, and why. Such attribution is required, in some form, anyway, and putting it the edit summaries avoids any unpleasant reversions. I'm not so sure it'ss a good idea to add that much information to the main article, or to change the layout to that degree without at least notifying editors on the Safehold article's talk page of this discussion first. - BilCat (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Understood and thanks for following up. We can talk about editing down my additions to the main Safehold page if you like, the important point was to get it copied out of here so that this particular book's specific events receive more prominence. SanSingularity (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, I too am content with the moves and changes. Debresser (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I followed style with the latest round of revisions, which are mainly grammar and two or three simple, yet important details that I felt ought to be included. If you feel like checking it, please do so Debresser. SanSingularity (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Theme section
So, I'll go ahead and do the right thing and consult since there's people just as invested in the maintenance of this page as me: What are we thinking needs to be done here? Or is that tag hopelessly out of date? SanSingularity (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)