Talk:Uncommon Valour

Style
Please note, it is (universally?) accepted that book titles should be in italics rather than bolded. I have made this change twice; if you feel that it is incorrect please explain why rather than simply reverting. Cheers, LindsayHello 02:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't realized. Ever since I saw that 2600:1006:b164:cb3e:f0a6:3641:61ce:7dbd had gutted the article, removing nearly 80% and leaving a mess, I've not been thinking, but rather reacting. I've no problem with italics rather than bolded book titles. I must have missed that in my initial research.

I am concerned with the removal of the ship lists, since they are allowed for the Jack Aubrey books, Master and Commander for example, why not here?

I tried to be as objective as I could in this but it is rather difficult to condense 225,000 words into around 3,000 so I might have misjudged. In any case thank you for the advice, the welcome, and the helping hand. Now how do I put the cover picture in the box? I'm very confused on that score. Clear Sailing, Sir Thomas 15:57, 31 May 2015 (EDT)
 * Hi Sir Thomas, how are you. With the ship lists per se, i suppose nothing is wrong ~ though the fact that something else exists is never an argument for allowing something in Wikipedia (there's an essay on that at WP:OTHERTHINGS, if you like) ~ but i believe that they are adding too much detail on an article which does not need it.  There are other issues, in fact, which i think are far more important than the ships lists, if you don't mind me iterating them.
 * First, the plot sections as they stand are too detailed; you referred above to the difficulty of condensing the books to the article, but i don't believe it has been achieved, currently. As a rule of thumb, if i were to make one for novels, i wouldn't expect the plot section to run to more than 25% of the article; generally, it is not the plot that novels are notable for.  A similar ratio might exist in an article about a person, maybe 25% to their biography, which i see as similar.
 * Second, i preferred the layout with the plots put together, and the other information presented together, as it seemed less choppy than the current.
 * Third, and most important, i am not certain that we need an article on this book. Have you read WP:NBOOK?  This lists the guidelines for notability for books, and, though i'm sorry to say it, i don't think Uncommon Valour meets those guidelines.  I have not suggested it for deletion yet, but that's not to say someone else won't; rather than anything else, if you are convinced that it does meet the guidelines, i suggest you put that information here, and allow someone else (much the best way when you have a COI) to add it.
 * I hope none of this is painful, though i can see that it might be unwelcome. My intent is purely to improve Wikipedia.  Again, if i can help....  Cheers, LindsayHello 06:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)