Template talk:Honorverse

Borrowed from discworld
This was adapted from the discworld portal on 7/23/07.--Tbmorgan74 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Add list of books
I'd propose to add to this the list of books that can be found on Honorverse (and 8 other articles). That would add this essential information as to what is the source of all the information on the Honorverse, and would allow for making changes easily (as compared to making them on each of the so far 9 pages separately).Debresser (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I would propose adding the template (the present template or an enlarged one) to the 18 articles on books set in the Honorverse. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just did the first. Debresser (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And the second. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Unlike most Honorverse articles, there is no doubt that individual books are notable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is bad organization. You should the standard Tnav based template format. The way you built it requires that this template be the first on the footer of an article. The book list cannot be "shrunk" 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the Honorverse template. I have two questions. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't understand what was wrong with the way it looked before. I understand it's something technical? It seemed to work fine though.
 * 2) The way it was before it looked nice: colorfull, two nice collumns. Could you make it look like an orderly table again?

It can still be colorful, it's just that the way you did it is not appropriate for use with navbar templates. If you wanted a book template, you should have made a second separate one, or made it with the same format as the old one, or integrated it INTO the old one. The old template was collapsable, your change isn't. That defeats the purpose of having a collapsable template. There are many non-collapsable templates, the Honorverse template is not one of them. Plus you've not formatted your table correctly, since it wasn't centered. (unless you meant to do that, in which case, it stylistically looks odd to not be centered)

The fix-up I did was quick and dirty, really, it should be one template, and not two functioning as one, or there should be two separate templates.


 * Honorverse
 * Honorverse books

Your table is also quite large. From my experiences on Wikipedia, it probably would have been zapped by some other editor for excessive size even if I didn't change it. Footer templates are supposed to be small. (even though some of them are huge... those seem to draw complaints because they are huge)

76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point about collapsability. And about being too large as well. I have no problem with the new form you gave it. Just that it didn't look as nice as the second part of the template.


 * I do not see any problem in having a template made up of two parts, especially since the division in this case comes naturally. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you say about the way it looks now? Debresser (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks ok. I've removed the hanging dots, and removed the extra lines (when making templates, where you start lines and place include, includeonly , noinclude tags can make extra empty lines appear for no reason). There should be no blank line at the end of a template, so I've also removed that. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the dots (that was indeed an oversight of me) and the blank line at the end.


 * Changing the position of the tags does not make a difference, as in Wikipedia a new line is not a new paragraph unless there is a blank line in front of it, but the way I had it before makes the table more easily overseeable when editing it. Not important enough to make another edit though :) Debresser (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It does have an impact if you have multiple nav templates. I've frequently corrected extra blank lines because of misplaced tags. The blank lines appear because they are transcluded. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant the whitelines I just added, before the template, so that it shouldn't come too close to the previous text. Have a look now if you like it. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's leaving blank lines right now. Template talk:Honorverse/testcases 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just corrected the extra blank lines before the template issue. (same way I did before, removing the lines between "noinclude" and the start of the template. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at Honorverse... Perhaps there should be a whiteline before and after the first part of the template? To make the overall layout look better. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with anon. We should either have two templates, or one bigger one, but standardized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case I would be in favor of two templates. Although I would automatically put both of them in every article connected to the Honorverse. But my opinion remains that having two navboxes in one template is no problem. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An Honorverse books template could be used on its own on author pages, instead of both templates, which probably should be there. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But David Weber has written more books than just the Honorverse series. So that wouldn't work, I think. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would work because you can have multiple nav templates. If they are collapsed, then they don't take up much space. Many authors have a book series nav template on their pages. Aside from Weber, there's also Eric Flint, etc. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to build template:Honoverse/doc and place the description there, along with Documentation 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page for continuation of discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Added, changed and deleted
Debresser (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Added Coup de vitese.
 * 2) Changed Star Ships to Spacecraft as in the article name.
 * 3) Changed the two entries called List to List of ships and List of treecats respectively.
 * 4) Deleted all 8 entries to redirects.
 * 5) Removed Saganami Island Tactical Simulator as it is a real-world game and as such not a part of the Honorverse.
 * You have a point about Saganami Island Tactical Simulator, but do you have a better suggestion for putting SITS on there? The game is considered canon - Ad Astra games works closely with David Weber on it - and in the intstruction manual it talks about the "game" being developed to train Saganami Island students in modern starship tactics. *shrug* I just think it should be in there somewhere, rather than hanging off by its lonesome. --Kant Lavar (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I also thought along these same lines. I put it back. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be linked. That said, is coup notable? IIRC it was a stub and on the verge of AfD for a long time... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know. It is here, so I added it to the template. Personally, I like it. I think it likely that Coup will turn out to be more notable than a lot of other things from the Honorverse. Time will tell. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary labels
I've trimmed some of the group labels for the books half of the template. Because the template makes clear these are "Honor Harrington" texts, repeating the phrase in group1 is redundant; and because the group1 label makes clear that chunk is one contiguous series, it's clear that the remaining groups are also separate "series". Sorry of the term "clutter" offended, but they are clutter-ous and create unnecessary whitespace, esp. with awkward linebreaks. --EEMIV (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously they are Honor Harrington books, but everything has a name: and this is their name. The "Wages of Sin series", for example. No need to cut down on clarity.

Thanks for skipping the "clutter" and other words that were used too many times during various discussions. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This last attempt is better. At least it doesn't leave out anything that needs to be here. But it is less nice, moving the boundary to the right. I really don't see the problem with the previous version. But this is already non-essential, so I'm not going to touch it. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks good. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are trying to make this template less good. It has very good names for its fields (and Jack Merridew made it better still today). You are just making it less clear and less fitting. This is not the standard of edits I usually see from you. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You whip out the WP:AGF stick on your talk page, and then ask why I'm trying to make the template "less good"? Get over yourself. I changed "Honorverse novels" to "Novels" because "Honorverse" is already at the top of the template. I changed "The Universe of Honor Harrington" to "Fictional elements" because that is a less-puffed up and more clear label for the components below. Furthermore, the text's link to the generic "Honorverse" is duplicative of the link at the top of the template, and there seems no alternative portal/gestalt amalgamation for "The Universe of Honor Harrington" (or its fictional elements). Can you offer a salient rationale for restoring those changes other than "That's the way it was" and "I think it's less good"? *what* about it is "less good"? I appreciate you've made substantial contributions to this template, but you do not own it. --EEMIV (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, here. Mostly I agree with what EEMIV was doing; this box is a bit overwrought; the very term 'Honorverse' is rather fanish. The left columns should match width-wise and that necessitates keeping things concise. I expect the reaction was due to the 'fictional elements' term — the policy the implications.

I'm going to fiddle with this in a bit; no reverts please: drop comments here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ — No reverting; comment, if you like. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter of owning (and please cut out the accusations, I've been there before), just a matter of using the names by which things are called. Have alook at David Weber, Honorverse. Just have a look at the TOC and you'll see what I am talking about. The template should first of all include all the necessary information in its correct form, and nice looks are secondary. Still looks good anyway.

I didn't touch the technical part of the previous edits. Actually, part of the problem is that the edit making the two parts of the template into one, created the need for another header. I think it was a good idea of mine to add the name of the author into the template. Hope everybody agrees. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, including Weber's name is a good idea. It might also be worthwhile to create an "Other contributors" group with the other folks who've written in part of this world. --EEMIV (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of the three-revert-rule I wont change it back till later today, but I have warned Jack Merridew to stop presenting incomplete (and therefore incorrect) information here. If necessary I'll take this to WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Get over yourself; the concise form is reasonable. If you would like, I'll work on making those pages consistent with this. You're quibbling over the word 'series' lulwut? Jack Merridew 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "series" is useful in a section header to add clarity to an article's TOC. In the article section itself, a list of several works under the heading makes "series" redundant, for the same reason "series" is a redundant word in the infobox. Please leave excised this superfluous word. --EEMIV (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't link you to change those other pages in this unlogical form. The word series is true and important and thus necessary. Your own argument proves this, since e first column of the template is like its header, and so should contain the word "series" for clarity.

May I ask what "lulwut" is?

May I ask what you mean "get over yourself"?

Debresser (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you missed something. In an article's TOC, the bulleted list of "hey, these are actually books" isn't visible; the "series" label clarifies the content of the TOC in the absence of actual book entries -- otherwise, "Saganami Island" might be a magazine, or a poster, or a CD release. However, here, since the individual entries are visible, the "series" label is not necessary. Furthermore, the context in this template of "A whole shitload of books" makes "series" even more redundant. If, however, you think the average Wikipedia user can't figure out that the word "Books" and the distinct groupings of several books indicates the groups are for some sort of related "series," perhaps you'd be content replacing the "Honor Harrington" label with "Main series" -- even then, the thickest web-surfer could figure out, "Hey, this first row is a series of books -- I bet there's a good chance maybe these others are, too." Again, though, I think it's an exercise is redundancy. --EEMIV (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we've worked out a compromise by including the word "series" once. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for adding the authors and all the technical improvements. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In what way...
...is "The Universe of Honor Harrington" more appropriate than "Fictional elements" or "Components"? Given that these are, ya know, components/elements of the science-fiction series. "The universe of Honor Harrington" sounds like some grandiose fanboy fluff label that, absent a star chart and tour book, indicates absolutely nothing about the nature of the content below. "this was fine before and sound good" isn't all that convincing -- what makes it "fine now"? And since when does "sounding good" trump "being clear"? It's essentially a wordier repetition of "David Weber's Honorverse" from the top -- complete with useless redundant link. --EEMIV (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. A 100%. And precisely because it sounds so grandiose, and because of the link which looks so nice in the same pastel colors as the rest of the template (instead of dull black), we should keep it. I'm serious.

"The Universe of Honor Horrington" implies: "all constitutional parts of the universe in which the character Honor Harrington is set". Which sounds better than dull and dry "elements", doesn't it? Debresser (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be an WP:ILIKEIT argument; try something that will hold some water. I've offered a neutral version that's not so fanish. Jack Merridew 05:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that my argument was based purely on estetics. If consensus can't appreciate that: so be it. But I did take the liberty to change to another formulation with objective advantages as mentioned in the edit summary: not just a list of words, but a precise description. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The ridiculous non-word 'Honorverse' is pure fan-enthusiasm. Show me a source that shows any other than fans or the author using this gibberish. Jack Merridew 12:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmm. Amazon uses it for its listings, as does Ad Astra Games. Weber refers to it as the "Honoverse". But, considering the series as a whole almost certainly hasn't been subject of significant third-party commentary outside the fan community (i.e. sci-fi web sites), I doubt there's much beyond that. --EEMIV (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About what I expected; the author uses it as a marketing term and Amazon and whomever the game company is follow suit to target the same market. Characters and Star-Nations (whatever they are;)Hmm… is descriptive, not hype, and seems appropriate. I'd be fine with 'Fictional elements, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to "Fictional elements" as a compromise.

Apart from that I strongly condemn the deprecating language used by EEMIV in many of his comments here and elsewhere. Not to mention his weak use of logic in arguments. And in his last post specifically, where did he think David Weber would be discussed mostly if not on sci-fi web sites? That doesn't turn them into fan communities though. they are third-party sources in all ways. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for all my "weak use of logic," the template looks pretty much how I want it, debreft of whitespace, redundancies and fluff. As for your (strong!) condemnation...whatever. I'm sure no one actually cares; certainly I'll get over it.


 * Template looks good. But, as for all the stuff it links to..... --EEMIV (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the template looks fine. As far as your language and logic are concerned. We certainly are not in the same social stratum. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You really need to focus on the content and not make snarky attacks on others. Weber's work is hardly Thackeray's. Jack Merridew 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The New York Times Review of Books didn't quote him using his pet-moniker for his franchise? Remember, sources independent of the genre are ideal. I'll leave it at "Fictional elements" — that "Star-Nations" was starting to look funny. I've been looking at the book articles and have not found a real review yet; dum-dee-dum-dump. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Expected
Please do not remove information about expected books. It is relevant information to distinguish between published and not-yet-published works. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a link with the real world. And it is all sourced in David Weber. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nit
The Saganami Island Tactical Simulator (i.e. Honorverse RPG) is not a "fictional element" per se. It should probably go in the top section as a new "Games" or "RPG" group -- but, I'm a bit wary of one-item navbox groups, so thought I'd just ask for a second opinion here first. --EEMIV (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I went through the same train of thought. In the end, I left it at the bottom. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WS1, WS2, etc versus WS01, WS02 i.e.: conflict with 'Waardenburg syndrome, a genetic disorder'.
Topic for discussion:

Should we change our short-cuts, ON THE TEMPLATE, for the Wages of Sin series
 * From: WS1, WS2, WS3, WS4, etc...
 * To: WS01, WS02, etc.?

Try the above links, and you'll see what I mean. There's a conflict with the article called 'Waardenburg syndrome, a genetic disorder'. LP-mn (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I just tried to add something with a reference of "WS2", but I had forgotten about this issue. If someone doesn't take action soon, I may do so on my own. In other words, change the reference on the chart to show "WS01" and "WS02". Does anybody object???? LP-mn (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, our books are less important than a medical syndrome. Hmmm, I need to buy WS02 ARC :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Compendium? -- Young Adult?
Take a look at this link: http://forums.davidweber.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=953. There you will find a quote from David Weber, originally from the Baen's Bar (in July '09), where he discuses the forthcoming compendium.

LP-mn (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have an opinion as to what our short-hand "code" should be for it? Example(s): HHC?


 * You're the expert on these abbrviations. Make your pick. :) Debresser (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the 'Young Adult' book that's due out? Anybody have an opinion as to what section it belongs into?  i.e.: Novel, Anthology, etc.???? LP-mn (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)