Talk:The Name of the Wind

message: I don't know much about wiki formatting but more information needs to be here about this book. Swordsman3003 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

message: There was a posting before about the plot summary being excessively detailed; I'm assuming whomever put that up hasn't read the book or understood that it's over 700 pages long.  I edited the summary a bit, but it's actually quite concise for all the events that occurred in the novel. Atherton53 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not whether we should trim down a plot summary for a 700 page book. the question is, do we need a plot summary this long, in relation to the books real world notability? if war and peace had been a minor work from a middling author, it would get a 2 sentence summary on WP, in relation to its real world impact. too long a summary for a book with little or no critical commentary is fannish and inappriate here. i dont care how large his fan base is, unless neutral third party critics have written about his work, the book should be summarized only briefly. mention of his fanbase size is fine, as is his bestseller status. All the articles about this author and his ouvre are overdone in this manner. Please, find sources for commentary (not just awards or appearances on "best of" lists) , or someone could legitimately cut back the plot summaries.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you looking for? http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/content/reviews.asp There are lots of exceedingly positive reviews both from the most prestigious media outlets and from his most famous contemporaries. By the way, isn't his entire "ouvre" just 2 books? 69.181.141.78 (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Detail 

message: Does wikipedia have a policy or precedent for which word to use? I corrected "flammable" to "inflammable" on July 1st, 2013, but another user immediately reverted the edit. Without offering a rationalization for the revert or opening discussion on the talk page, this seems perilously close to an edit war.
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.246.94 (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a single reversion as anything close to an edit war.  That being said, both words are synonyms of each other and though there was no reason given for the reversion, there was no reason given for your initial change either.  My personal opinion is that it reads better as flammable and flammable is the more common modern term.  According to the wikipedia page on Flammabilty, "In the United States the word inflammable has been largely abandoned in common, scientific, industrial, and written language".  I cannot find a more international declaration but unless there is a strong reason for changing it to inflammable, I would recommend leaving it as is (flammable). Caidh (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, everything Caidh said. If you don't notate your edits, no one will know what you are attempting to do and it will look like vandalism because you are using just an IP address to make the edits and not a wiki account. But yes, flammable reads better and is the more commonly used version nowadays. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flammable vs Inflammable 

message: Should it be included that the main character is most likely what can be referred to as the unreliable narrator? 2A02:FE0:C900:1:ADC4:D2C2:F604:A44D (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any speculation as to the truthfulness of Kvothe's story should be left out, especially seeing as how there is no source to back it up. Likely, or not, there is no source to confirm that Kvothe is misleading the reader whether in entirety or in part. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's made clear within the book that there are numerous versions of Kvothe's story, largely resulting from a combination of eye witnesses misunderstanding what they saw and embellished re-tellings. This is illustrated at one point when Chronicler encourages patrons in the inn to tell a story Kvothe has just covered (being attacked by assassins) and they are unable to get through it due to debates about which town he was in, whether he was in the market square or a back alley, whether it was day or night, if he was riding a horse at the time and so on. Kvothe claims he is telling the true version of events, but it's also made clear that there is no way for Chronicler (or anyone else) to verify that and at various points Kvothe admits to having started or embellished rumours about himself in the past so it's not out of the question that he's doing the same here (or alternatively toning it down or skipping parts to make the story sound more believable to his current audience). However, having said all that unless a 3rd party has covered this (or it becomes a major plot point later on) we can't include it in the article because it would be original research. 82.68.159.246 (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The original comment was specifically talking about Kvothe's recollection of events, not the patron's. As for the reliability of Kvothe and his story, it's pretty much irrelevant. Either you read the books and enjoy them, or you don't. Either way, nothing has specifically been laid out in the story.... yet. Perhaps book three will tell us how accurate Kvothe's story is. I kind of doubt that it will, and it may be that the legitimacy of the legend, even from the lips of Kvothe, may prove to be elusive. For now, let's not speculate. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: There's no need for each book in the series to have its own Wikipedia page. Should we merge them with the Kingkiller Chronicle page?
FishAndCrisps (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal