Talk:The Clone Republic

not finished yet
Sorry, not finished yet, but not bad for one mornings work right? ;) - NemFX (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I removed your hangon tag, as the speedy had already been declined as inappropriate to the topic. I've also put the underconstruction template on the article for you instead of the note you left at the bottom page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have the rest of the summary, and then probably the technology stuff all written up by Tuesday. This weekend is a write off for me, due to illness and injury. - NemFX (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the summary, but it's clear that it's been incomplete for over a year. Has anyone else read this book? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Series
The Clone Republic Rogue Clone The Clone Alliance Clone Elite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotius (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, must find paper with rest of summary written on it. - NemFX (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor note
For anyone reading this: I only have about 2/3rds of the summary up. Maybe 3/4ths. I need to take the book out from the library again before I can finish this, so if anyone else wants to give it a go, feel free. - NemFX (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do some wish to delete this?
It is notable because it was reviewed favorably on many established media outlets. I read that it was on the bestseller's list at Barnes and Noble, but I'm having trouble navigating their website and finding that list. Anyway, being reviewed makes it notable enough for the rules. Does anyone know its exact sales figures though?

I'd like to point out that the plot summary isn't any longer than the one for the book I am Legend, or other novels out there, so no reason for people to complain about that. The characters and technology are an important aspect to a book of this genre, so its good to have a nice list of those there. Dream Focus (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tech section, important or not

 * Your claim that this list of trivia is "important" to understanding the story is OR; cite a critic who says these are important concepts. Otherwise, it's an indiscirminate list of plot minutiae. --EEMIV (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The story is based in a science fiction word, thus you need to understand the technology used there. Common sense.  And the above part is from months ago when someone tried to delete the article entirely.  I'm undoing your deletion of the tech section again.  Please wait until someone else chimes in their opinion on this, before trying to kill it off again.   D r e a m Focus  04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And in that time, there's still no sourcing that this trivia matters. Provide a source and meet the burden of proof for editors adding/restoring content. If there are concepts/ideas important to understanding the PLOT, integrate them* in the action plot summary (*rather than just copy-and-pasting the list). A separate section for, "Hey, here are some ideas!" is superfluous and unencyclopedic. --EEMIV (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for a third opinion.   D r e a m Focus  10:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus that technology is important in a science fiction series such as this, does not require a reviewer in a newspaper or magazine to tell us that. All information is from the primary source, and that does not count as original research.   D r e a m Focus  17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the inclusion criteria for that list of trivia? Is that every piece of technology? Where is the explanation for how this content is important to understanding the text? Where, even, are the citations that this content appears? Please actually read WP:OR (and WP:WAF) before attempting to define it again. --EEMIV (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want citations for every single character there is as well, telling you where they were first mentioned? Do you actually have any reasonable doubt about the information being valid?  If not, stop wikilawyering, because it isn't an issue.  WP:V can be met simply by stating that all information comes from the books, if that fact isn't obvious enough outright.   D r e a m Focus  18:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OR
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts
 * The facts were published in the books.


 * Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.
 * It describes the technology in the books, listing exactly what it is, and what it does. You don't need any specialist knowledge to verify the accuracy of that.  Just read it.   D r e a m Focus  18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're making the claim that these elements of plot are important to understanding the book. You need to cite a source to substantiate the claim that these things are important within the text. That's the OR. Yes, I'm sure these things are all actually in the book -- but we don't just list random stuff. Please substantiate through third-party sources your claim that these elements/details are important to understanding the text. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. WP:NOTLAW Common sense indicates that a book based on futuristic technology, one of which is clones, which are in the title, and a core and obvious part of the book, should list that technology.  If you don't know the technology used to get around, or how the array keeps people alive, or what weapons are used, then you can't understand the book.  Which listing in the technology do not think valid?  Should we not list the three types of clones, for a book titled The Clone Republic?   D r e a m Focus  01:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course yon tech section is unimportant; it is just more plot summary, which is what this whole article is. I've just read the Village Voice source Better Than Angelina Jolie! (wtf? — title appears to be a hook for the adjacent advert); the text is almost entirely a quote for the book's author.

There's obvious OR in there; I just tagged one bit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppet accusations
Based on your involvement here, you've been added to the list of suspected socks of Mbhiii at Sockpuppet_investigations/Mbhiii. It would be helpful if you would clear this up. Dicklyon (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ? I've been around for years and made a lot of edits. I've been involved in this article before.  Why would you think me to be a sockpuppet?  State one reason for your ridiculous claim.   D r e a m Focus  16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one who added you there, but the claim appears to be based on your adding the same "technology" section as several members of a known gang of socks. If it's not you, just say so.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

citation needed for this?
''Mankind has spread across all six arms of the Milky Way galaxy under the control of the Unified Authority. The UA keeps control of countless planets and governments with a powerful and numberless military made primarily of disposable clones.[citation needed]''

That's from the back cover of the book, word for word. No citation is needed. And you should only tag things you personally have doubts about. I put it in italics to indicate its a quote from the book.  D r e a m Focus  10:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Such self-serving blurbs are typically written by the publisher, possibly the author. It's more plot summary from the primary source.
 * And last I checked, mankind hadn't made it further than the moon — and none too recently.
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe anyone will be confused? It says Plot Summary above that, so obviously its about the plot, and not a true story.   D r e a m Focus  11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Use of such glaringly promotional material is quite inappropriate; we're not writing our own fawning review here, are we? See the full quote I just added from scifi.com; that's called damning with faint praise. See WP:TONE. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of articles for books have a quote from their cover describing them.  D r e a m Focus  11:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; So? 'Anyone can edit' does not mean they do so appropriately. Jack Merridew 11:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But hasn't that been mentioned several times by a number of characters in all of the books ? Scotius (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why tag something as Original Research then restore it after I remove the bit in question?
 I don't understand. Why add back in the sentence fragments you consider original research?  D r e a m Focus  11:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I though you had simply removed the or tags; I looked again and just reverted myself. Can we leave this be for now? Find a few new sources, if possible? The 'Jolie' one is ridiculously lame and the scifi.com one is weak. Jack Merridew 11:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They meet the requirements for notability, both legitimate third party media sources, giving a proper review of it. The method in which the reviewer writes is not relevant.  Many girl magazines, for example, write things differently than a tech minded magazine would.  Depends on who your target audience is.   D r e a m Focus  12:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the LocalTechWire.com post is a blog; it would appear that this is a quite marginally noticed work, so, no, notability concerns are quite valid. The VV source re Jolie would appear to just be about waving her tits at fans and promoting the game advertised adjacent to the bit that was mostly a quote from the author the book. Jack Merridew 12:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (name here): Just read above where I mentioned I was asking for a third opinion, when there were just two people participating on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Clone_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=286309430#Tech_section.2C_important_or_not  D r e a m Focus  03:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....


 * Third opinion by Anaxial: Having reviewed the tech section, it seems to me to be too lengthy, but not without merit. The book apparently focuses on clones to a significant extent, so it seems reasonable to describe what the clones are. But much of the rest of the tech section seems to be over-detailed - as are the Plot Summary and Characters sections, for that matter. I would suggest keeping the parts on cloning and "broadcasting", and deleting everything else in the tech section. Ideally, third party citations should be found stating that these two features are important to the plot (which shouldn't be too hard, assuming the book has been reviewed anywhere). I'd also suggest that these would be better incorporated into the main text of the plot summary, rather than broken out as individual sub-headers, but that's a stylistic matter. Anaxial (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez
I go away for awhile, and all this drama starts.

I finally got my own copy of The Clone Republic. Also book 3 and 4 of the series. Apparently #2 is out of print.

Anyway, long story short, I'll try and update this thing so it's better, or at least more accurate.

At earliest convenience anyway. Probably tomorrow. - NemFX (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. There you go. Updated pretty much everything. I'll do more later, but hopefully everyone will be happy with that for now. I can't get the Technology header to work for some reason. If anyone wants to fix that, feel free. - NemFX (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, fixed it. I typoed an end bracket. All fixed up and lookin' lovely. - NemFX (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Clone Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304105520/http://www.scifi.com/sfw/books/sfw12541.html to http://www.scifi.com/sfw/books/sfw12541.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)