Template talk:Honorverse

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

message: # Added Coup de vitese.
# Changed Star Ships to Spacecraft as in the article name.
# Changed the two entries called List to List of ships and List of treecats respectively.
# Deleted all 8 entries to redirects.
# Removed Saganami Island Tactical Simulator as it is a real-world game and as such not a part of the Honorverse.
Debresser (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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| talk  17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Added, changed and deleted 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nit 

message: Topic for discussion: 
Should we change our short-cuts, ON THE TEMPLATE, for the Wages of Sin series</br>
:From: WS1, WS2, WS3, WS4, etc...</br>
:To: WS01, WS02, etc.?</br>
Try the above links, and you'll see what I mean.  There's a conflict with the article called 'Waardenburg syndrome, a genetic disorder'.</br>LP-mn (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, our books are less important than a medical syndrome. Hmmm, I need to buy WS02 ARC :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WS1, WS2, etc versus WS01, WS02  i.e.: conflict with 'Waardenburg syndrome, a genetic disorder'. 

message: 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. 
* Does anyone have an opinion as to what our short-hand "code" should be for it?  Example(s): HHC?
LP-mn (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the expert on these abbrviations. Make your pick. :) Debresser (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compendium? -- Young Adult?