Talk:The Highfield Mole

The 2nd Book
According to Amazon, the second book is called "Deeper" and will be available in May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.176.190 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) --Markdekarro (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Was deeper released then? In the US 2008 version, it said it would come out Fall 2009 on the cover.

Yes, it has. On one of the last pages, a third book is announced: Free Fall. Once again, the plot is very interesting, but the style is a bit tedious - the book could perfectly be shorter. Furthermore, the overly (ab)used adjective "sheer" - at least once every 2 pages - is quite annoying. It could be a great movie though, because it certainly wouldn't hurt to cut out some boring parts of long and repetitive underground wanderings.

The incidence of the word sheer is actually once every 7.28 pages. What does "the book could be perfectly shorter" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantrumi (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tunnels
The novel The Highfield Mole (aka Tunnels)is being made into a major motion picture. --The dragon library (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It says that on the inside flap of the book. Any more info?

Sequels
Added a sequels-section, and the amazon date for Free Fall. Dracoster (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was no consensus. --Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The book is named Tunnels both nationally and internationally, and is not advertised with the name "The Highfield Mole." Readers looking for the book, without knowing its publication history, will have a hard time finding it.

It would be better to have the old title link to the proper title of "Tunnels (novel)". Dracoster (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really: the new title is "Tunnels", not "Tunnels (novel)". Anybody searching for "Tunnels" will end up at the Tunnel page where there is a link here. It's more likely that somebody would enter "The Highfield Mole" than "Tunnels (novel)" if they were guessing at the name, so the move would seem fairly pointless. Yomangani talk 09:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Don't agree at all. What right have you to dictate that there should be no further changes? The name "The Highfield Mole" is absolutely meaningless to people - it was a tiny circulation self-published book from four years ago, which happened to be picked up by a mainstream publisher, and is an anomaly and incidental. Most people searching for "Tunnels" will be confused when presented with the Highfield Mole - this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. You might as well have "He do the Policeman in Different Voices" as the main listing for Eliot's "The Waste Land". I propose that we simply ignore Aervanath and go with Dracoster's recommendation. If there is conflict with generic "Tunnels", then why not have pages for Gordon and Williams, which doesn't exist at the moment? By the way, what consensus is being invoked here?

Assessment
I have assessed this article as a C class. To improve, I reccomend extending the plot summary and rewording it to avoid an in-world perspective, including in-line citations to support the article, and extending the lead paragraph to briefly cover all major sectinos of the article. If you have any comments on this assessment, please leave them on my Talk page. strdst_grl  (call me Stardust)  20:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger with The Highfield Mole
The following note was added to Tunnels (novel) discussion page: Active Banana - The Highfield Mole page has been lacking significant citation and Wikipedia conformity in every way for the best part of 6 months. I have spent many hours today improving the article and citation in general, so it can act as a stand alone page. However, within hours you undo much of this - some of which I do agree with as the page now just reflects Highfield Mole content. If you are watching my activities, it would have been prudent to let me know before I put in all this work today. And the merger has been proposed for over 6 months - long enough time wouldn't you think for these notices to be removed! There were at least 2 parties originally against the merger! And might I add that much of the previous opposition to this was by a user who has subsequently been revealed as a serial Sock Puppet Master. Just how much longer do you plan on having this unnecessary notice posted here? And why is it that my view continues to be dis-regarded? Perhaps if you do have time on your hands you could approach me in a positive and pro-active manner in helping me carry out the much needed work on the Highfield Mole page!! (Lifesawhirl (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
 * see the merger discussion above. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of the merger discussions took place on the Tunnels page! Further to my unanswered questions above - Just how long do you propose displaying a redundant message? (Lifesawhirl (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC))