# Talk:Septimus Heap

In the Q&A session October 15th at the Anderson Bookshop in Downer's Grove, IL, Angie Sage said that it was not animated. Parts will be animated, such as Stanley and the Boggart, but the human characters will all be live action.
She says it was just a misunderstanding, as they were discussing the prelim work on the parts that will be animated. JKaizer (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. A reference please? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There isn't an official reference, that's the problem. The best we have is [1] that. Until an official thing - on her website or the Septimus Heap site - comes out, I think it would be best to leave the section vague in regards to it. I really wish I had video taped the visit...
And it should be noted that there hasn't been an official word that it IS animated. The section should wiped. --JKaizer (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a reference present from Cinematical stating the fact about the animation. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What a relief, though where they're going to find somebody with violet eyes is anyone's guess. I really hope that the movie doesn't end up a complete flop. That always seems to happen when books are brought to life. 99.138.32.94 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just be reminded of WP:NOTFORUM. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The version of this page as of 14:45, 26 July 2008 Shauki Alg was quite good. The edits since then have been heavy-handed and wrong-headed. 

um, MATTHEW WAS ELECTED SUPREME OVERLORD OF EVERYTHING AND THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER. Call me crazy, but I don't think this was in the book somehow.
Fear The Hams.-- 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This is spam. End of topic.
Keeper of Heaven 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a good guess at what Septimus Heap Book 5, Syren, will be about:
The books title "Syren" is almost like the word "siren" which means "one of several sea nymphs, part woman and part bird, who lure mariners to destruction by their seductive singing." And sirens live in the sea. So that signifies that the next book could be about  Septimus, Jenna, Nicko etc joining Milo Banda (Jenna's father) on a sea voyage to distant lands and islands. Tell me what you think of my speculation.

Is anyone going to put down the book before Syren, The Magykal Papers. It was on the wiki-answers page.
~~Rckhound1~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckhound1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 

I noticed that on the Septimus Heap articles, both this one and some of the articles on the individual books, some "magykal" terms are bolded. I believe this follows the books' layout, but is contrary to the Manual of Style. I thus propose un-bolding all those terms. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unequivocally and absolutely. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Huon (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, i have updated the character section with a list of other characters from the series. Please add-on if you have any new character in mind.--"Legolas" (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no - please don't just ad names and descriptions of characters or places - see our guides to writing about fiction and WP:CYF - Encyclopedia articles should not simply be lists of items that appear in books. Find material that other writers have published in reliable sources to add material to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem may hinder a GA nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the  title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:
<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref> 
As an example:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>
which looks like:

Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.
If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes GA review, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, regular editors of this page. There is some discussion about the passing of this article as GA due to the length of the in-universe character and universe location lists. This could result in it being taking to GA reassessment, and at the momment i would have to agree that i think the lists are too long and too in-universe for a GA. Would there be any opposition to spinning the lists of characters and locations into one or more sub-article lists, leaving a smummary here (eg, only the main characters). Many such character sub-list articles exist, and a few have become Featured lists, so in the long term i think it would improve coverage of these books as well as easing reviewers minds about the GA pass. 
I can mame these daugher article(s) if you want, or wait for someone familiar with the topic. Thanks for listening, and keep up the good work!Yobmod (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Good Article Reassessment has now been opened; the reassessment page is linked in the message box at the top of this page. Our aim is to see Septimus Heap retain its GA status, so all interested editors are invited to participate and help to address the issues raised. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've slightly expanded "The novels" section, based mainly on the articles on the individual books. I'm not familiar with the novels, so my edits need to be checked for accuracy and balance. Geometry guy 15:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be engaged in a very slow edit war on whether Septimus Heap is high- or mid-importance by the WikiProject Novels' standards. I'd personally say that mid-importance is more accurate: "Subject is notable or significant within the field of literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it." By comparison, Eragon and Twilight (series) are also mid-importance, while admittedly Northern Lights (novel) is rated as "high" - on the other hand, Inkheart is rated as "low". All of those are (parts of) popular series that had a movie made after them but are far from the universal popularity and trend-setting effects of, say, The Lord of the Rings (rated "top") or Harry Potter ("high").
My suggestion would be to keep it on high importance for Children's literature and the Fantasy task force, but lower it to "mid" for the main "Novels" classification. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This was requested for assessment on the WikiProject Children's Literature Project Page, yet is already rated as a Good Article. I am therefore removing it from the assessment list. If you have any problem with this, please replace this for assessment or contac me through my talk page. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Legolas, I know that you are with that thing of "this is not a reliable source". Well, go to the OFFICIAL website of Angie Sage, www.angiesage.com and you'll SEE there a link to the blog - it's the blue door. The blog IT IS INDEED very reliable. It's part of Angie Sage's official website.
Shauki  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.199.34 (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) 

I don't understand why are you resorting to sockpuppetry when you clearly have an account User:Shauki Alg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Does that matter? I don't care about that account; all I'm interested in is the series. You are very headstrong and that's not good. Angie has made this clear on the blog, on bookshop signings and her publisher too: "While the article says that the movie will be full animation it will actually be live action with animation, not full animation. Sorry for any confusion! Best regards, Jean McGinley, Subsidiary Rights Manager, HarperCollins Children’s Books." Write him and ask him if you think that it's not a reliable source. Her website, as you can see, it's very official - so it's a reliable source. But know what? I'll tell her to put that up on the official website, to be a reliable source. It's that enough for you? Oh, wait, no, perhaps you'll need a visit from Angie; face to face. Be nice and edit the page - do not mislead the fans of this series.

Since Shauki signed the message, it hardly counts as sockpuppetry IMO. People may just forget to sign in. Huon (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The following sentences of the lead have been called into question: 

The series has been noted for the realism and richness of its characters, the compelling nature of their adventures, and its humour. It has been compared with Harry Potter and other works within the genre.
While I agree that in general the lead should just be a summarization of the article and does not need sources of its own, that only holds if there is relevant content later in the article which is sourced. I don't see how that's the case for these sentences. It looks like a supposed summary of the reception, which tells us about the characters that "the reader does not get to know the characters as well as the Harry Potter books", which doesn't sound like an endorsement of their "realism and richness". The "humor" seems rather far-fetched as well. In short, these sentences look as if we had cherry-picked the best parts of reviews for a fawning summary. Huon (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A number of articles for titles in this series recently redirected to the main article based on one user's decision regarding notability. Would like to hear from more on their opinion regarding this dramatic change, given that some of these articles have existed for years. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering about this too - currently 3 of the books (Magyk, Flyte, and Syren) have their own pages, while the other four do not, which seems confusing.  Looking at the history pages, it seems the issue was lack of reviews, but it is unclear to me how many reviews are required to establish notability. Scottcal (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy series (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain.  This series would qualify.  Anyone care to add it?  Tamtrible (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements in the article. While some might be covered by MOS:PLOT, other information is not
There is a lot of information about the fictional world, but not much information about the series development, critical reception or other real-world aspects. I think this article might need a re-think to ensure it adheres to the information on what should be in the article.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)


### Septimus Heap
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
There are uncited statements in the article. While some might be covered by MOS:PLOT, other information is not. There is a lot of prose about the fictional world, but not much information about the series development, critical reception or other real-world aspects. I think this article might need a re-think to ensure it adheres to the information on what should be in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of the uncited stuff seems to be covered by MOS:PLOT but I don't think there is enough out-of-universe sourcing to pass the broadness criterion of GA. That's the bigger problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
I've gone through and cited or removed everything that needed citation. In the process I removed an apparently spurious quote that has left the "critical reception" section very sparse indeed. There was some non-universe info getting drowned in that over-long "locations" section; I think there's a reasonable amount of non-universe info across the "Development", "Geographical inspirations", "Film adaptation", and "Reception" sections. But I'm torn as to whether the "Reception" section is close enough to to meet the low bar of "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail"; some reception info is present... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
To be more explicit, I think the article is now sufficiently sourced for a GA, but still possibly borderline for breadth. I can see the argument either way for breadth. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep. While I still think the article is a little too heavy on the fictional world, if other information can't be added then there's not much we can do. GAs don't require complete articles, and I think all the main topics are covered. Citation concerns are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure more can be added -- it looks like every book in the series got a Kirkus review, for example, so sources exist for more on the reception. But I don't personally choose to keep working on it, at least not today. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)