Talk:Treason's Harbour

Name change

 * Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. grendel|khan 21:24, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
 * Neutral to Don't Move Some of O'Brian's titles require disambiguation and it seems reasonable to have a certain consistency in the page titles with the added (novel) after all of them. Given that I am not completely set on that. Dabbler 23:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Consistency request

 * I was wondering if an editor (who has the time) could go through all the book's article pages to ensure the same consistency with all the layouts, section titles, text formatting etc.? I would do it but am too busy reading the books again and working on content Ivankinsman (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, does anyone know about the historical references for this book? I am not really au fait with historical events in this part of the world! Ivankinsman (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dromedaries
In the third paragraph of the plot summary, some joker linked the word Dromedaries to the page for camels, although in this context the word refers to the crew of HMS Dromedary. I removed the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.47.46 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

need citations from outside refs for Narrative Style section
If anyone has references about O'Brian's series of novels to support the point made in Narrative Style, that would be helpful. The main article on the series, Aubrey-Maturin series, does not discuss the narration except to show how nautical terms are explained by way of conversations between Maturin and the ship's crew. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence to the plot summary indicating that Wray meets with Lesueur, and Maturin knows nothing about those meetings. That was half the point of writing about the narrative style, to make that clear. We readers know what Maturin and Aubrey have yet to discern from other sources. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

lead
According to the Manual of Style I'm aware of, the changes are clearly needed, as the former lead did not do a good job providing "a concise overview of the article's topic", or in this case, the plot. Besides being incomplete, it's also poorly written, with the feel of someone pulling a few sentences off the back cover or a publisher's summary, complete with a teaser at the end. ("The high level double agent whose existence Maturin begins to suspect does not succeed in undoing either Maturin or Aubrey, yet." Really?) The rewrite encompasses more of the novel's events and is still only a single medium-sized paragraph, so brevity is clearly not a problem. Also not a problem are wikilinks in the lead. Look at MOS:CONTEXTLINK - while wikilinks are not usually used early in the first sentence, they are recommended to provide context after that. Never seen any experienced editor argue otherwise.

The real problem in the lead is the last paragraph, which spends almost half of its length concentrating on a poor review of an audiobook version. Didn't have time to work on that, however, as I'm wasting my precious time typing this. Zeng8r (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , each article on a book in the Aubrey–Maturin series has a summary of the reviews in the lead. Several editors requested this feature and rightly so. Everything is wiki linked elsewhere in the article. Characters are linked in the Character list. Ships are linked in the Ship list. Please see the talk page of Master and Commander, the first novel in the series, where several editors agreed to a pattern for the articles on the novels in this series. The writing was not pulled off the back cover of a publisher's summary. It is now the work of a few editors. Your version is too long and over-linked; too long in the context of the article itself, which is not a long one. Plus you add errors, not using British style, and your language goes beyond the novel as well as beyond the plot summary. Maturin does not see an enemy out to kill him, that is the point of the last sentence of the lead paragraph. I compromised earlier by accepting a longer text while removing the excessive links, so I put that version back.  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)