Talk:A Fire Upon the Deep

message: The preceded by / followed by entries in the infobox for this and A Deepness In The Sky are reversed, apparently because Deepness is a prequel. Surely these should refer to the date of publication, not the in-world chronology? I also dislike the passive-aggressive tone taken by the note left in the edit page.  Euchrid (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No response to this, so I've gone ahead and made the change. Euchrid (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Preceded by

message: Nearly every paragraph in the plot section contains spoilers. It seems geared at reminding those who have read it about all the details they forgot. This makes the entry a terrible resource for people who haven't read the book.
The characters start out largely clueless, and the novel goes to great pains to carry you along through their process of discovery. Reading this plot description kills most of the wonder involved in that process.
I don't want to just wrap the whole plot in a spoiler tag, but I also don't want to rewrite the whole thing myself.
71.168.204.56 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading through the wikiproject novel guides on writing articles, i feel a little more comfortable removing the whole plot writeup. The guides specify brief descriptions of plot, while this one goes into great detail on nearly every point, including the ending of the book. 71.168.204.56 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your removal. The guides may specifiy brief descriptions, but they are only guides and you are the first to object, and it seems to me that 5 paragraphs or a screen is pretty brief for what is an awfully long and event-filled novel.--Gwern  (contribs) 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to concur with the guy's objection, not to mention that the plot does a totally miserable job of conveying the actual context the book prevents the events in.  The idea that it potentially caused trillions of collateral deaths is TOTALLY ancillary (in the book its practically unmentioned) next to the fact that they have essentially averted the apocalypse.  The article should either stick to the cold, hard facts of the story development, or it should offer to commentary that the author intended. The plot section reads more like one particular book club discussion than an actual synopsis. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers?

message: Wikipedia is supposed to * NOT * be a collection of links.
The two reviews removed were trivial home-page type reviews... if Wikipedia started including things like that there would be ten thousand links to every passing opinion on each Beatles album, etc!
(Not to mention the thousands of people's-opinion collections on venues like Amazon.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed two minor reviews...

message: Is the -in of Stalin possessive, as stated, or adjectival? — Tamfang 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our Stalin articles says: "Сталин (Stalin) is derived from combining the Russian сталь (stal), "steel", with the possessive suffix –ин (–in), a formula used by many other Bolsheviks, including Lenin." --Gwern  (contribs) 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian

message: Argh, I've mislaid my copy. What's the name of the first human world in the Beyond, ancestral to most if not all humans in the Beyond? One mention of the name, I think, occurs where Ravna meets Pham, who is visibly not of the same ethnicity. — Tamfang 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nyjora. Ravna refers to Pham as "A glimpse of non-Nyjoran humanity." --Clarityfiend 00:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Nyjoran branch of humanity, whatever that was, was the only branch to make it to and/or establish a significant foothold in the Beyond.  They spawned Straumli, among other colonies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.129.194 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name that planet

message: The cover image I added is the Boris Vallejo cover that I've seen on nearly every edition. I have yet to see what the first edition hardcover looks like; if anyone does have it, please feel free to replace the first-edition paperback cover. --grendel|khan 14:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to get a photo of my first edition..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover image

message: : [sexual identity amongst mixed-gender packs being determined by majority]
Is that supported by canon?  I seem to remember that Tyrathect was "she" at first and "he" later when the Flenser persona took over.  —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I would suggest making that 'strongly influenced'. The meaning of pack gender is itself somewhat speculative. -- Resuna (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  pack gender 

message: The 'Trivia' section is tagged as needing work: I'm not volunteering.  But the content of this section is unusually useful and interesting to the reader of the article (except that most factoids have no cited source).  But note the use of the word "currently", never a good idea - does that mean in 2008, or when?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.218.209 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: What is the justification for saying the boundary between the Slow Zone and the Beyond is "abrupt"?  To me this suggests a boundary surface rather than a rather narrow transitional zone; I got the impression there was a transitional period as they enter the Slow Zone.  But, I don't remember enough to answer this.  If there is evidence that it's abrupt, fine, but otherwise, I suggest simplifying "changes abruptly at the boundary" to "changes at the boundary".  Please help.
Zaslav (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reports of the Zonographic Eidolon (if I'm remembering the name right) on the movements of the boundary indicate that the position of the boundary can be measured with some precision, implying that it is rather sharp.  Also, doesn't the Aniara Fleet suddenly find itself (temporarily) in the Slow? —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The boundary between the Beyond and the Slow Zone is defined as the threshold of FTL capability.  On one side of it FTL jumps can be effected and on the other side they can't. So while the underlying phenomenon of the zones may be a smooth gradient in some sense, this capability is depicted as binary; it either works or it doesn't. At some point you'll find that the capability is either there or it isn't; being binary with no in-between state it's going to be by definition abrupt. -- P.T.isfirst (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the word "abruptly", because P.T.isfirst convinced me we don't actually know that.  Either P.T.isfirst or Tamfang may be correct as far as we know.  Shall we ask Vernor Vinge? Zaslav (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny, because I thought I was making exactly the opposite point. The zone boundary is depicted as abrupt because it's defined by FTL jump capability, which is something you either have or you don't. There's no middle ground, though the speed improves along a gradient in the Beyond where you do have it.  But since there's a critical on/off threshold, I'd say "abrupt" is quite appropriate. P.T.isfirst (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zones 

message: Does the "Slow Zone" and "Beyond" remind anyone of the plot of Poul Anderson's Brain Wave?  I just read it and I suspect it gave Vinge the idea.  -- JSBillings 16:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly is plausible; have you considered asking him? I understand he's relatively accessible and even answers email (or something; I forget how Raul654 got his picture). --Gwern  (contribs) 14:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not these days. "(November 25, 1926 – July 31, 2001)". See discussion of the word "currently", above. --Thnidu (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anderson isn't the one I'd ask whether his book gave Vinge the idea. —Tamfang (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Thnidu, I meant Vinge, not Anderson. --Gwern  (contribs) 03:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Oops. Sorry. --Thnidu (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This is probably correct. VV dedicated A Deepness In the Sky to Anderson, in which he says that he stayed with them during the 1960s (and possibly where he got his Scandinavian influences from as well, though Anderson only lived in Denmark until WW2). 168.70.78.235 (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of the Slow Zone

message: The Zones of Thought section says that in The Unthinking Depths "[s]pace travel is nearly impossible, requiring big, dumb vessels with neolithic automation and massive redundancy." "Neolithic"? Only in the colloquial sense; impossible if taken literally. Since the distinction is so unclear, and the expression isn't cited as a quote from the book, I'm changing it. --Thnidu (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neolithic? 

message: Someone using the University of Waterloo IPs  and  has repeatedly inserted nonsense into the article:
:One of the archaeologist programmers also had a vision of defining an a functional monad with no relation to the category theory derivative. A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors. He wasn't sure what the problem was.
Searching a digital copy of this book shows no occurrences of "monad", "endofunctor" etc.
129.97.247.2 is also repeatedly inserting silliness into Old Man's War. Please revert/rollback this stuff on sight. Cheers, CWC 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Gwern tells me it's a joke about Haskell (programming language).  Uncommonly persistent joker, tho. —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird vandalism 

message: On 16/17th Feb 2011 a user name EEMIV deleted about 2/3 of this article (23k -> 8k)... many important aspects of the novel were removed, including the pack-mind of the Tines and the Zones of Thought. Was this done for a reason, or was it just over-zealous editing? Does anyone object if I put most of it back? Tobus2 (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it per WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and the overwhelming indiscriminate inclusion of tangential content. I suggest asking for a third opinion, considering how low-traffic this article is. --EEMIV (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article ought to cover the most distinctive features of the novel, namely the Zones and the composite minds (Packs and Skroderiders), rather than plot details. —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The notion of "distinctive features" is WP:OR -- if third-party commentary on the book cares enough to offer analysis of "zones" and minds and whatnot, then that's appropriate in a commentary section. The plot, however, should in fact consist solely of plot details. --EEMIV (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   I disclaim any intent to contradict any tautologies. —Tamfang (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Info

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A Fire Upon the Deep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303224912/http://www.sff.net/people/jdvinge/letter_20081103.htm to http://www.sff.net/people/jdvinge/letter_20081103.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why are the canid aliens of whom
:  each "person" compris[es] a group mind of 4–8 members, who communicate using very short-range ultrasonic waves from drumlike organs called "tympana".
called "tines"? It isn't mentioned in the text, but I'm pretty sure I know why. 
Our article Tine (structural) says  
:Tines..., prongs or teeth are parallel or branching spikes forming parts of a tool or natural object.
Merriam-Webster Online defines "tine" as
:1 : a slender pointed projecting part : prong 
:2 : a pointed branch of an antler 
But I suspect most English-speakers think of a tine as specifically one of the prongs on the business end of a dinner fork; most forks I've seen have four. One such tine alone can hardly do any of the things we use forks for. And like these tines, the alien Tines are fully functional only as a group of four or more.
--Thnidu (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "Tines"?