Jump to content

Talk:Honorverse/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

File:The Honor Harrington Universe.PNG

File:The Honor Harrington Universe.PNG

File:The Honor Harrington Universe.PNG was recently removed from the article by someone saying it's WP:Original research.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a map in one of the books? If so, then wouldn't you just need to add references to the image? 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
There are maps in books, yes. Those might have copyright issues though. This map was appearently created by a fan. If it is available somewhere on the web, that would help. I had a look at David Weber's official site, but the map is not on it. A map of the Safehold world is available there at this link. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but schematical representations are not original research, if you can reference the diagram to source material. Just as a bargraph is not original research if you have the data it was built from. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. To quote the policy:

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.

As the information in the image has already been published, there's no problem. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I have seen similar maps in the Honorverse books, but this specific one? Debresser (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This one is a melding of maps found in several of the books. Most books only have a map showing one part of this one. The author of this map took all those maps and created the full picture. You could do the same by tearing the pages out of the books and putting them together. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the map should be safely restored. I think it *was* on the web years ago, when I found it and talked to the author about putting it on wiki. At this point I have no memory where it was; I checked my @: while I still have the emails from the creator (good for confirming the free license) we never mentioned his site in the emails - I guess back then we knew which it was (heck, back then I had my own HH fansite :D, maybe it was hosted on it?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I remember seeing it on a site which was not in English (even thought he map was). Several years ago. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I prefer to have it also. Debresser (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I went to inspect the website where that map was posted. The website mentioned is a fan-made website. That is not usable as a normal citation. The map still needs a valid citation to elevate it above fan-made into semi-official status.AnimeJanai (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You folks looking for this link?

I'd say that there an awful lot of original research required to get from a prose description in the books to a map some fan created. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. This map fits into the category of "original research" and should be removed. However, before removing it, let's have a few more weeks pass by, and if *ahem* the author reposts it in the reasonably official Baen forums or his own website and mentions that it is a "reasonable" (abridged or unabridged) map without errors, then it would be allowable in the Wikipedia article. Since the author is fairly responsive to fans, if this doesn't occur, then it might even be considered a "no confidence" indication from the author. Otherwise, it is a fan's original item and should be removed per Wikipedia rules.AnimeJanai (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the map was posted there, and discussed - years ago. Instead, since the map is freely licensed, I'd encourage anybody to improve it and/or repost it there for this discussion - the author is not involved in Wikipedia. In either case, as it is the only free map we have, I think it is more useful to keep it rather then to remove it. And frankly, I think the map is as good as about 90% of fan-made semi-accurate historical maps we have... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It is unfortunate (fortunate?) that we both agree that this fan-made map is more detailed and looks better than the officially published maps. However, this is a fan-made map composited from published prose and other maps (official or fan-made). Wikipedia is not a database of fan-made materials. The accuracy of its content is also based upon the ability to provide a reference. If the reference for this map is from someone such as the author, the author's designated map maker from prior books, or the publisher, then that would be a suitable reference.AnimeJanai (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's actually based on maps published in the various Honorverse books, not on prose descriptions. All of the information in the maps can be found in the various published maps in the books. It hasn't been updated in a few years, though, so some of the map information from more recent books isn't included. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
To meet Wikipedia requirements for Verifiability, I have marked the item as needing citation. This is the proper way to resolve challenges to the verifiability of a fan-made item such as the fan-made map. Let's not have an edit war where people assert that material needs no references if it is fan-made. Thank you.AnimeJanai (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The link is in this section. What is your problem? Debresser (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, images don't require a citation. They just need to list the source on the image page itself, which this image does. Your edits are becoming disruptive here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Slightly off topic, I do think that there should be some inline citation and more source control for images (particularly, amateur made maps). But as my attempts to make it so failed, the current status quo is indeed that we are rather lenient with such images. Not to mention that in this particular case I don't think the image is controversial, or unreferenced, so really, aren't we making a mountain of a molehill here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that some seem to be making more of this than they should. If we cited it completely, we would be citing about 11 books or so, which seems very excessive to me. The maps in those books don't even have a page number, either. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules state that not everything needs to be cited, so there is no need to have excessive citations. Excessive citations were not requested for the article. The rules indicate any challenged material should be resolved with a citation. Because of this, it is unseemly to delete the citation request rather than providing a citation from a reliable source. This may be a situation where dedicated fans consider an article to be their territory and refuse to allow fan-made material to be challenged for verifiability. Excessive deletion of verification requests could be juried through the existing impartial third party process, but that may polarize people so I will not do that. Nevertheless, in this case, fans chose to have more "stuff" in the article even though it is unverified, rather than a smaller article where challenged material was forced to have a citation. Deletion of verification challenges feels like the proverbial restaurant that claims each year to have zero complaints and lots of accolades (because they threw away all the received complaints). Those of you who have had a lot of exposure to how certain people use their authority to do things may have similar examples of their own. Don't get me wrong, I like the map too, and as the owner of a bunch of hardcover Honorverse books, I can see how some (but not all) of the material came from the few officially published maps. However, my first bias was towards protection of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of properly referenced items as opposed to Wikipedia having bigger articles. Well, right or wrong, in this case I will accede to majority rule and no longer challenge unverified material in the Honorverse.AnimeJanai (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I am happy we have come to consensus. That is the backbone of Wikipedia. I shall definitely welcome your future contributions. There is a lot to do in the field of sourcing for Weber's books, as mentiond recently e.g. in Talk:Honor_Harrington#April_2010. Debresser (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
He's being facetious. Even if the maps are based partly on descriptions in the books, it's not original research. For this kind of information, you can only use primary sources, including descriptions in the books. There are all kinds of diagrams and maps on Commons which were not solely based on previously-published diagrams and maps. A fair number of them are based on descriptions in text, yet they are all accepted. I could understand your concern if it was obvious the creator of the map had just made it up out of his head, but this is based on the actual content of the maps in the books, and on descriptions within the text. There is no other possible source than the books. It's not like National Geographic is going to have maps of the Honorverse. If you want, AnimeJanai, I can ask David Weber directly about the map, but you probably wouldn't accept that anyway. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I was not intending to be facetious even though you took my comments that way. As for Mr Weber commenting on it, that was what I had hoped for in an earlier comment. That would certainly count as a reference if the author approved it.23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me people, I'm a late come-er to this discussion. As for the "original research" issue, let me share an urban myth: It's alledged that one of the most well known maps out there, perhaps the very same one that was at the top of the Honorverse article, was literally based upon a napkin that David Weber wrote on in a coffee shop or bar where he was having a discussion with person who ended up creating the map. I _THINK_ (but I can not cite) that there was even an image of that very same napkin posted on the web somewhere. Anyway, I don't know if this comment is/was helpful or not, but I thought I'd put it out there for you.
LP-mn (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The map was removed without any clear comment. I have restored it, it is about as good as any fan-made map can be. It would be great if Baen published a map under a Wikipedia-compatible license, but till then, we have to do with fan made stuff. It is fairly accurate, again, for a fan made map (and we often use historical maps of real world which are even less accurate, too). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Merge from Honorverse timeline

There is unnecessary overlap of content between Honorverse and Honorverse timeline and the timeline is basically the major part of both articles. It would make a better Honorverse article if the Honorverse timeline was merged into here. The new merged timeline could be based on the Post Diaspora dateline with both events and book titles would be subordinate to the PD date. This arrangement would also make it more clear where the events stood relative to each book's initial PD date. An example format is shown below:

  • 2064 AD Lunar Revolt against Earth in the Sol System.
  • 2102 AD The Diaspora (Humanity's expansion throughout the galaxy) begins on September 30 as Prometheus, the first manned (albeit generational) sublight interstellar ship departs the Solar System. The era of sublight colonization begins.
  • 1 PD The first year of the Post Diaspora corresponds to 2103 AD.
  • 1652 PD "What Price Dreams?", February 1999, in Worlds of Honor by David Weber
  • 1946 PD "Inevitable Solarian Demise". The Solarian League's combined fleet of 236,000 capital ships is beaten by 3 capital ships of the "Deus Ex Machina" series of mother ships from the Manticorean shipyards. Earth surrenders to Manticore within one year.
  • 1 PM First year of Pax Manticore. The galaxy is united by the Manticorean philosophy of genetically manipulated life and economic mixture of feudal and corporate capitalism.

AnimeJanai (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am against this idea. In this article (Honorverse) there should be a short summary of the timeline, which should be in prose. Honorverse timeline is the real timeline, which should read almost like a list of year - event, year - event, without making stringent demands on prose. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm against this, too, especially as it would significantly increase the size of the article. It's better to keep it separate as it's only going to get larger with more books being regularly released. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat torn. I see why the merger is proposed - and I do wonder if the timeline article would survive the AfD. Of course, I'd preferred to see it properly expanded and referenced - but let's ask ourselves - will it be? When? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the Honorverse article being longer? As a "high" importance article, it needs more "content" instead of pointing to content elsewhere. The historical timeline seems to be a natural fit in the Honorverse article. One way to justify the Timeline as a separate article would be to develop it further as a sort of date-oriented concordance of plotted events in the book. But that might be hard since there are only vague ideas of exactly how much time passed between major plot events, so a date corcordance might only be possible one day when Weber releases one himself.AnimeJanai (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You can be fairly accurate, as Weber regularly includes dates for chapters (especially in the more recent books when multiple things are happening at the same time). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I am opposed to merging in the timeline. First off, the length of the main Honorverse article is just fine. Merging in the timeline will make it a bit long for the casual 1st time reader. 2nd, the timeline is short on detail and needs to be beefed up. IOW, it's not of the same caliber as the main article. Leave well enough alone. LP-mn (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Against merger: As a small part, the Honorverse article has a concise, non-spoiling timeline of the books and anthology stories, useful for deciding which books and stories to read in what order; the authoritative Timeline should be a more detailed chronology, detailing (and spoiling) events within books and stories, to present a detailed Timeline of the series. These come at the topic from different "directions" and should be kept separate. Laguna CA (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lindskold stories chronology

I think they take place after HotQ, not before Basilisk station... so, about 10 years later on the internal chronology then currently listed. I am pretty sure they take place after the Manticorian-Grayson alliance. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is only 2 years between the Lindskold stories and so bumping the first one 10 years forward makes sense.

There are now three Lindskold stories: "Queen's Gambit", "Promised Land" and "Ruthless" (in order of both chronology and publishing date). PL states QG was nine years earlier, R states QG was "over nine years" earlier *and* PL was two and a half years earlier. PL takes place before, R after HotQ. According to the established dates, there are 20 years between QG and HotQ, making a typical Weber numbers mess. :o( Kiwaiti (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Promised Land states early in the story: "Since the Masadan attempt to gain control of Grayson society had been thwarted by a woman" clearly placing this story after "The Honor of the Queen" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eantipa (talk • contribs) 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC) ok... disregard the above. We do get a clear placement further on in the story: "But Michael Winton had been Crown Prince for the last nine years" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eantipa (talk • contribs) 09:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Three formerly deleted articles are in my userspace

For those interested in Honorverse on Wikipedia, I've arranged to have three formerly deleted articles recreated in my userspace. Hopefully we can bring them together to notable status. I think referencing would be very helpful. The Weapon and other concepts are at User:Piotrus/Honorverse concepts and terminology, and spaceships, at User:Piotrus/Spacecraft in the Honorverse. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Error with Shadow of Freedom (after A Rising Thunder[8]) listing ???

In the section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorverse#Honor_Harrington_series
There's this entry:
14. Shadow of Freedom (after A Rising Thunder[8])

I thought that SoF was going to be in the Saganami_Island_series.
Shouldn't this entry be moved to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorverse#Saganami_Island_series  ???
(...and NO, I can not prove my comment.)
LP-mn (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps ask on the forum of Weber's website. If your suspicion is confirmed, you can always change it here. Debresser (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


I agree with the original poster. The recent pattern has been updates to both spinoff series between each main book. Also the naming convention clearly fits within the Saganami Island series. colorblindpicaso (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


Not an error: "A Rising Thunder (March 2012) Editing has resulted in a split into two volumes." SoF is the second volume, delayed to release 2/2013 for the 20th(?) anniversary of the Honorverse. Another CoS novel will publish late 2013. The original plan (see some of the interviews with Weber at Baen or his own site(?)) was for Honor to die in battle as Nelson did and her children were to fight Mesa. However, as her death approached, no one (including Weber) wanted to kill her off. Also, Flint needed a big enemy for CoS, so Weber gave him Mesa, tightening the original timeline so there was no time for Honor's kids to grow up and become starship captains. My guess is that SI was a bridge between the two generations of Harringtons, the SI characters being teachers of Honor's kids; and that SI now is dead, though the characters will probably appear in the two main series and possibly in short stories. SI seems to have been displaced (in DW's workload) by the YA series, and certainly coordinating HH, CoS, and SI was a problem. (end guess) Laguna CA (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Title "Wages of Sin"

From a recent post on the Bar, which I rarely visit anymore, but still...

"- David has said, fairly strongly, that he and Eric do not refer to their collaborative books as the "Wages of Sin" series, nor do they really understand why a segment of the fanbase insists on calling them that. Their collective label for that story arc is the "Crown of Slaves" series, after the title of the first book, and the "new thing" that those events inserted into the galaxy which is going to contribute to changing that galaxy for all time. So the possible next book in the story of "20th century" Honorverse is probably best referred to for now as CoS III. " So I would like to ask - what is the source for the "Wages of Sin" subtitle? If there is no, we should change it to "Crown of Slaves". Or at least add it as an alt title for this subseries... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur—change the sub-series name to "Crown of Slaves"; Crown of Slaves (in italics) being the book title.--Dbrukman (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Real World Parallels

This is a suggestion for some new content. Any thoughts? Is this worth including? Markjeff (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some parallels between places in the Honorverse and in the real world of the 18th and early 19th centuries, though these are perhaps best described as "inspirations" rather than being slavisly followed, as noted below.

Honorverse Location Historical parallel Comments and differences
Manticore British Empire A very close parallel with type of government, politics, navy traditions, attitudes to slavery etc. England and Scotland and never-mentioned planet for Wales in one island or solar system, Ireland nearby. Even Elizabeth's name is a match.
Haven France While it has communist overtones, Haven roughly follows the history of the French monarchy, the Terror, and the early Republic. In the early books, several names are puns from French history.
Silesia The Caribbean Corrupt little states, pirates running wild, many nations trying to exert influence. Alternatively, on earth, Silesia is a region in southern Poland.
Anderman The USA Though it has mostly German names, and a hereditary monarchy, the Empire fits many of the same roles that the US did. However, there is no colonial relationship between Manticore and Anderman, so Germany is more appropriate.
Sidemore Bermuda A remote station providing an anchor on the edge of a chaotic area (Silesia).
Grayson Portugal ? A close ally, forced together by common enemies, with a different religion and some degree of prejudice.
Solarian League Russia? This one is not so clear. Any suggestions? There was a long discussion in a Usenet group on this. Consensus is that it doesn't refer to anything in Elizabethan times, though Imperial China was mentioned. Suggestions were that it is an analog of Byzantium circa 1200, or USA circa 2050, among others. Russia was big, but nobody thought of it as technologically or otherwise world-dominant.
This would have to be sourced. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


A problem is that DW has stated [Baen interviews?] that at least some of these were red herrings (false trails) to lead readers astray so he could surprise them. The French analogs to Haven were explicitly stated to be intentionally misleading, though later alliances do have historic parallels. Silesia could as easily be the East Indies, everything from Ceylon to Taiwan. I don't see the US in its imperialistic times as being as tentative as the Andermani--I would be interested to hear supposed parallels--Portugal???) Solarian politics are parallel to Poland, at least in myth (I haven't seen, in a brief scan, the single fiefdom veto, and I've been told by Poles it's a myth.) I don't see Grayson as a parallel to Portugal, considering Henry the Navigator; as stated in the books, I think it's a parallel to Japan, especially the Meiji Restoration when the diamyos were suppressed in favor of the Emperor. Laguna CA (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Shadow of Freedom ARC is out

[1]. Probably worth mentioning. PS. Based on the blurb, it seems more like a Saganami Island series arc than the main HH one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

movie

some time ago i readed that movie from honorverse is planed, event david weber confims it, anyone have info at which time is planed shoting ? 88.102.84.189 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not much in reliable sources, but there are some recent news: nyt movie site seems most informative/reliable but at the same time some people on this forum suggest it is old news, IMDb entry has next to nothing yet, blog, wiki. So for now - we have to wait till somebody bothers to do at least a press release. No mainstream, reliable coverage yet :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong names

As my attempt to start correcting the names of the subseries have promptly been reverted, I'll just leave what info I have here and let others do the work, as is apparently preferred: There is not "Wages of Sin" series, Weber and Flint refer to it as the "Crown of Slaves" series and are at a complete loss where this "WoS" notion comes from. The young adult novels are called the "Star Kingdom" series. Source: numerous comments by DW and associates on his own forum. Have fun. -- Imladros (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing your edits reverted in the article's history. The series names are unreferenced, so they can be changed without much problem, but it would be nice to cite reliable sources; forum comments are hardly reliable (or in a form that lends itself to citing). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
In this case I tend to believe Imladros. Especially since the name "Crown of Slaves" has been used here before. The problem is that these names are in use on all pages related to David Weber's books. If someone, Imladros?, would take it upon him self to slowly but surely go over al of them, then this would be useful. Changing it in one article and not in others, would contribute only to making a mess. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to get rid of the redirect for Shadow of Freedom and create a new article.

I would like to do two things, but I can find no information on how to do them

1) Eliminate the Re-Direct you get when searching for "Shadow of Freedom". It takes you to the Honorverse Article. I can find no information on even where to look for redirects.

2) Start a new article for "Shadow of Freedom". Again, no luck finding information on how to start a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terr1959 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's lots of info on how to start new articles: Wikipedia:Your first article etc. etc. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_Freedom?redirect=no and start editing... AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming books

Some info on that is here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to link http://honorverse.wikia.com/ which I believe is the premier resource for Honorverse on the web. In light of Wikipedia:External links policy, which however encourages caution when linking to other wikis, I'd like to ask for comments on this issue. Are there any reasons we should not link to this site? I believe linking to it would be very helpful to the readers. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely, the general warning notwithstanding. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree.--Dbrukman (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Barring anything new that I don't know, I'm ok with this. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The addition was reverted by User:Nikkimaria with a referral to WP:ELNEVER. I had a look, and am not sure, but I suppose he means copyright infringement. I posted a request on his talk page to explain here. Debresser (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Debresser, Dbrukman, and Dougweller: No, it's not because of copyright infringement. It's because certain editors dislike Wikia and remove any and all links from Wikipedia to Wikia. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Perennial_websites#Proposed_entry_on_Wikia. Through you are right: User:Nikkimaria cited ELNEVER, which simply does not seem applicable. Per WP:BRD, I am restoring the link and inviting her to explain the specific concerns here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is because of copyright infringement: as I mentioned at the linked discussion, some wikis (including this one) use non-free material in a way that does not satisfy the requirements of fair use. Per WP:ELNEVER, I am re-removing the link. (PS: Debresser, I'm female). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty hot about no copyviolinks, but whatever the problems are with other wikia links, I don't believe they exist for this one. Baen.com seems to have good relations with it, see the teachers' guides at [2], [3], [4]. And although it is OR and an assumption, Baen the publishers are clearly well aware of the Honorverse wiki and could easily have taken action against it. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That Baen links to it does not mean it is acceptable under our policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
And you keep removing it without any evidence. If you can show that you are right, great, I'll agree. But your first comments seem to be a general objection to the wikia host, not this specific site. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Look at the main page: there are non-free images being used decoratively (and checking a few finds no attribution). There are links to huge galleries of non-free images. And then we get articles like this one linked under "Top Content", copying almost the entire content of a copyrighted source - too extensive to be considered fair use. Problems like these are common to a large number of Wikia sites - indeed, several of the ads on this site for other Wikias are using non-free images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking at the same page? At the main page of Honorverse wikia I see an embedded youtube trailer video (official), and eight thumbnail navigational images. I checked one, and it seems attributed: http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/File:Treecat1.jpg . There's also a link to the Featured Article, that image has a fair use tag: http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/File:Tales_of_Honor_01_cover_01.jpg . I also checked another random image - http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/File:Courageous_class_in_space_01.png - again, attributed, copyright is respected. Now, you may find a few images that are unproperly added, but you know what - Commons hosts probably a thousand times more illegal images than that Wikia, so... let's not try to take up any moral high ground on images. Four checked, foru fine. So in samples I checked, your argument about copuvio in images is false. Regarding the article you link, it reproduces the back cover blurb, and then summarizes the book. Where's the violation in that? Can you point out a specific legal precedence where it was said that reproduction of an entire fair blurb is not consistent with fair use? On Wikipedia the quotation would a bit excessive, but as far as I know there are no hard rules on how much you can quote, we are just "playing it safe" per Wikipedia:Quotations, but nonetheless those our simply our suggestions; heck - W:QUOTE is not even a policy but an essay. Given that David Weber and his publisher, Bean.com, are aware of and supportive of that Wikia, your arguments don't seem much to go on. Consensus can't trump policy, but it can trump one editor's false reasoning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Except that you've not demonstrated that my reasoning is false. The "thumbnail navigational images" do not meet fair use as placed, and that some are properly attributed does not change that. Galleries of non-free images do not meet fair use. Copying 450 words from a copyrighted publication is not fair use. Non-free images used as advertisements definitely do not meet fair use. That we sometimes fail to meet fair use guidelines does not justify breaking our policies here. If you want to seek further opinions on WP:ELN or similar go ahead, but in the meantime do not restore linkvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I respect you as the authority on fair use on Wikipedia, but you are not the authority on fair use in the wider world, I am afraid. All criticism you cite is simply based on Wikipedia policies which are a legally non-binding interpretation of fair use. Honorverse Wikia has a different interpretation of fair use than Wikipedia, but it is not our place to say which is better. It's up to the courts, if this ever ends up there, which you know just as me is a snowflake chance in hell. Per ELNEVER, it's fine to link to websites that "uses the work in a way compliant with fair use". As is the case with Honorverse: they say they comply with fair use according to their view of it, and it's good enough. We cannot expect other websites to hold to our, legally non-binding interpretation of the law. And while OTERCRAPEXISTS or such is not a valid argument in a case by case, if we used ELNEVER to remove external links to websites where we could find some fair use aspect to dispute we would have to remove links to 99% of websites. In other words, I believe that your uber-strict interpretation of ELNEVER is not used with regards to majority of external links, you are just using it selectively to exclude wikias, while not reviewing other sides. I believe there's no consensus for your interpretation of ELNEVER, both based on my reading of it (I don't believe you understand it correctly) and on the "common practices" (I don't believe your interpretation is shared by the majority and used on non-wikia sites). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Piotrus' opinion is correct. Talking about details - is cover summary of a novel a really prohibited content according to the US fair use law? Have we any judgements concerning cover summaries? --Dotz Holiday (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, my criticisms are founded in broader interpretations of fair use, not just Wikipedia's:
  • "Illegal without explicit permission: ...(use) as embellishment, decoration for artistic purposes for other than temporary purposes" (decorative != fair use)
  • "Minimal usage" both in terms of number of non-free items and extent of a single item is a factor in "fair use in the wider world", not just Wikipedia. While there are no explicit maximums, 5 images from a single artist[5] and 250-300 words from a prose book[6][7] are often cited; evaluation of fair use also considers such factors as transformation (which here is minimal), proportion of new work made up of copyrighted material (significant), and attribution (spotty)
  • Commercial usage weighing strongly against fair use is relevant only to the "wider world", as Wikipedia is non-commercial and does not include advertisements.
Honorverse Wikia is welcome to have a different interpretation of fair use than we are, but since their "interpretation" is inconsistent with "fair use in the wider world", we are policy-bound not to link to them. What they say about it, and whether they've been sued yet, doesn't change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thank you for explaining the issues in detail. I agree with you that use of fair use as a decorative element is problematic, but the page you linked isn't an official legal analysis, but rather a library guide - am I correct? If so, this, IMHO, still falls under our interpretation. Regarding quotation length, I would agree with you if not for the fact that we are talking about a blurb, i.e. text that is intended by the copyright owner to be shared widely for advertising purposes. As such, and given that the precise length again is only an interpretation of the law, I think this is not any clear cut violation. Finally, the Honorverse wikia is clearly non-commercial, so I don't think that is an issue for us? (Yes, the host, Wikia, is commercial, but I don't think this is more relevant as the fact that Wikimedia Foundation uses commercial Internet hosting services or such). PS. For anyone interested in Honorverse Wikia discussion about this, I've asked editors to comment there at http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Honorverse_talk:Editing_Conventions and it's nice to see that they are seriously considering our (Nikkimaria's) concerns. Nikkimaria, I'd very much appreciate if you could offer suggestions as in what the Honorverse wikia could do to address our copyvio-avoidance concerns. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The links I provided were examples of ones that explain fair use in the "real world", but the issue of the character of free use is well established legally - there are classes of uses that are likely fair and classes likely unfair, and decorative use falls into the latter set. All Wikias are considered commercial sites, and even if they weren't, using copyrighted images to promote their own sites is considered a commercial use - and that's not likely to be something they're able to change locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and having now looked at your posts there - you can't get consensus via canvassing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Sorry about that, refactored. Could you list what practical changes Honorverse wikia would have to implement for it to be compliant with ELNEVER? I assume removing the eight circle buttons based on fair use images would be one of them. What else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
What about particular problem of a cover summary (unfortunatelly 450 words long). That kind of content has another appropination, than any part of a prose book (information or advertisement, created by an editor, not an author; thus, not a part of a novel). Again - are there any judgements concerning cover summaries? Why cover summary is a literature work, and why it is not just a piece of information?--Dotz Holiday (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Piotrus: sure I could, but changing buttons would be the least of them, and I'm not sure these steps are really practical in the situation they're in:

  1. No non-free images in ads, unless those ads are either by the copyright holder or someone with a license to use the imagery. That means ads for other Wikias must be entirely free
  2. All uses of non-free material, whether text or image, must fall under one of the allowed purposes and be justifiable according to the four factors of fair use (p. 34). This means no decorative use and likely no non-free galleries, among other things. Non-free material should also attribute the creator/copyright holder, and indicate in some way (eg. tags for images) that it does not fall under the site's blanket CC license
  3. Review fan art to ensure its licensing status (ie. address derivative works).

Also, while not required for us, I'd recommend they also check their compatibility with the broader Wikia terms of use - my reading of that strongly suggests non-free text is not permitted. They don't seem to explicitly discuss fair use for images there, unless it's on another page? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I think your points two and three are very reasonable, however regarding the first one I think that it's rather too far reaching. A site should not be held responsible for the actions of others, and when it comes to advertisement one has no control over - ones that are few in number, and are not all problematic - this seems a bit excessive. Would you agree to re-add the link one the images are reviewed and tagged, and non-free galleries (outside a MediaWiki-generated and thus software hard-coded category pages and the cover gallery, which clearly fails in that project's scope) removed? PS. What if the Honorverse Wiki would be able to present evidence of official endorsement/permission from the copyright holders (Baen Books, presumably)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No. The ads are probably the worst single thing on the website in terms of fair use, because commercial reuse is very difficult to justify as fair use at the best of times, and the way they've got these set up they can't provide proper attribution or even any indication that the images are non-free (not to mention that they're using imagery from some of the most lawsuit-happy companies, when it comes to copyright infringement...). If Baen were to release their images under a license compatible with the CC-BY-SA license used by Wikia, that would deal with most of the other concerns, but you'd still want to check what they don't hold the copyright on. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Umm. 1) We habitually link to numerous websites that run advertisements, and some of those advertisements are surely violating some copyrights (if not fair use, then freedom of panorama or such). We don't enforce this policy for those websites, why single out wikia? Particularly when most other sites have some control over their ads, but a Wikia community has none. 2) As I am sure you know, to expect a commercial publisher to do something smart like use CC for book covers is a tad too optimistic; however, what if they were to say that they see Wikia uses of their images as fitting with their view of fair use, or more generally, that they have no problems with how their images are used there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the factors of fair use is minimal usage - the more a site relies on fair use, the less able they are to justify it. So if you're not asking Baen to release the images under a CC license, then you're still relying on fair use for large swathes of the website (both ads and content), you still have to review everything no matter what their response is, and you're still not going to be able to justify those ads. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria: I concur with you that the examples you cite violate fair use. However, we do link to thousand of other sites that violate it in a similar fashion - not as some exceptions, but in fact I believe majority of our external links fall into such category, as virtually all websites, including WMF projects, have various fair use problems. As such, I do not believe your interpretation of the policy is correct, as if it was applied to all external links, we would have next to no Internet to link to. I have asked for rules clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Clarification_needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, many sites have fair use problems; however, the issue here is the extent of the problem. Again, the more non-free material is used, the less likely it is justifiable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria: I am glad we agree that the problem is common to many sites, some of which we link to. My question is - where to draw a line? Because clearly, here, for example, the two of us disagree (or rather, a number of editors and you have different opinion). As I certainly acknowledge that most of those who disagree with you, including myself, may be biased per "I like it", I wonder what our next step should be in this dispute resolution? Shall we draft an RfC? How about "Editors are seeking opinions on whether inclusion of a link to Honorverse wikia [link] violates WP:ELNEVER? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you've already agreed that two of my three recommendations are reasonable, and since these have not been acted upon, I'm not sure what an RfC would achieve, particularly as you're already seeking clarification on various points in multiple venues. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that we agree on certain things doesn't mean that we agree on all of them. In particular, your interpretation of the policy that this sites violates ELNEVER is not something I agree with. PS. I have found here a few cases of Wikias linked from other pages - I don't see how they meet ELNEVER better than the Honorverse wikia. So, pray tell me, what matters? Because we clearly link to some wikias. We do link to some wikia sites. Yu-gi-oh Wikia ([8]) is linked from Yu-Gi-Oh!, following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_45#Allow_external_links_to_Yu-Gi-Oh.21_Wikia.3F. Naruto links to Naruto wiki ([9]). Memory Alpha ([10]) wikia linked from Star Trek or Wookiepedia ([11]) linked from Star Wars. Young Justice (TV series) links to Young Justice wikia ([12]), following a discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14. What makes those links acceptable? It is certainly not the fact that those sites respect copyrights to the letter, as just looking at the Star Trek and Star Wars wikias for example I see violations - such as a Death Star used in Wookipedia logo, or a number of decorative images used at Star Trek wikia, galleries full of problematic images ([13], [14]), and so on. If you can tell me what makes them valid, I'd be very interested in learning that. PS. I will ask about this specific case - Honorverse wikia - at WP:ELN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Honorverse_wikia, two editors disagree with User:Nikkimaria's interpretation of ELN. As such, and given the clear consensus of other editors here, I am restoring this link, as useful, and not failing WP:EL. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

One editor said "I have no opinion at all on the Honorverse wiki link. I've never looked at it. I only say that the presence of a small number of possible copyvios somewhere else in the site is not necessarily a bar to linking to a page that does not have any copyvios". As already explained, the main page of the site (the one you wish to link to) does include copyright problems. The other editor said "WP:COPYRIGHT does strictly disallow linking to sites which carry work in violation of a copyright" and "If people are looking for the Honorverse or Star Wars wiki, that is what search engines are for - and I do not think that omitting these wikis is detrimental to the understanding of the topic as described by this encyclopedia". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: the new official page for Honorverse franchise (http://www.tales-of-honor.com/) now officially recognizes the Honorverse wikia as part of that franchise and links to it at http://www.tales-of-honor.com/connect . Unless we want to be more holy than the pope, I think that's enough that it is perfectly ok for us to link to that site (as the official IP owners have endorsed it's existence). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Tales of Honor

How to mention this new franchise name? Any thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

House of Steel and Manticore Ascendant need added to the timeline

Where do those books fit in the chronology? Bizzybody (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean under Honorverse#Stories listed by internal chronology? The individual stories are listed there: ""A Call to Duty" and "A Call to Arms" (Manticore Ascendant), and "I Will Build a House of Steel" (House of Steel). - BilCat (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This Is Getting Ridiculous

Goodreads is a social media review site, per WP:NBOOKS, and not considered a reliable source. Please stop removing the {{vs}} tag until a reliable source of some type can be provided. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My problems with the tag are as follows:
  1. Nobody, including to all appearances you, is disputing that the information is factually correct. That already means that according to the Wikipedia guidelines this information does not have to be removed, or even sourced. Between the two of us let's be honest, it is unlikely that the information will turn out the be incorrect.
  2. Many titles of books are not sourced, on the articles of many authors, and nobody feels bad about that. This is obviously for the above mentioned reason, that there is no need to source such trivial information that is not likely to be incorrect or contested.
  3. Because of these two points, I find it hard, although I do try, to assume good faith in your insistence to have a source, and a good source, for this trivial information.
In any case, I added two more sources. One of the is not so good at all, a Wikia, while the other is one of the co-authors' Facebook pages, which per WP:FACEBOOK should be fine as a source. Debresser (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Have you never heard of hoaxes, or of information that later turned out to be false, or premature or misleading in some way? Peoople add false information to WP all the time, which is why we have WP:RS, and which is contrary to your faulty interpretation above. This is why I removed the info when it was first added, as I often do when IPs add info. (I edit from my very-long watchlist, so I often don't have time to spend verifying info. Even had I been able to find the Goodreads or Facebook sources, I would still have added a VS tag to the info, as I have done on numerous occasions in the past.) My adding a reliable source tag was perfeclty legitimate after you restored it. I admit I shouldn't have removed the whole thing, which is why I restored it later, but with the fact tag. To be honset, I am dumbfounded by your insistance that we don't need to have reliable sources, especially as you have been an admin in the past, I think. This is not an optional part of WP, even though it is often not followed. Insisting on reliable sources is not acting in bad faith, whether you agree with my methods or not. As such, I've again readded the VS tag to this information to note to the reader that all the info, including the release date, has not been confirmed through reliable sources, such as reliable publications or direct info from the publisher. If this tag is removed again by you, I will file a 3RR report against you. Good day. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Please don't threaten people with 3RR when you are just as guilty as they in violating it (both of you have already done so). Instead of commenting on your incredulity at the actions of others, how about spending a little time actually improving things. Yes, you might edit from your watchlist, but surely you can take 5 minutes and find a couple good sources. They really aren't all that hard to find, especially for a popular series such as this one. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the sources, it is perfectly acceptable to use a facebook post by one of the authors as a reference for the title of the upcoming book. Information directly from from the author or publisher is very often accepted and used for things like this. I can understand the Wikia article not being used, though it does reference the same facebook post. I also wouldn't use the Goodreads page as a source as it is unclear where they got the information. Your insistence on something more reliable than directly from the author is detrimental to the encyclopedia, and your attitude smacks of WP:OWN. If you like, I could quote a whole bunch of policies and guidelines to you to support these things, but I prefer not to wikilawyer. Please adopt a more congenial attitude so that we can actually get something done instead of wasting time arguing something which can easily be verified through the completely reliable sources already there. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I will make any promise I want to, including taking anyone to 3RR when warranted, to stop their behavior, even at the risk of a punitive block myself. But I should have never had to in the first place! And I do note that you removed the release date,as that was not verifiable in the Facebook post, which oddly you failed to mention here, probably because it partially validates my actions. And no, insisting that policy be followed does not violate OWN, but removing a valid request for reliable sources might well do so. Please note that I have searched for reliable sources since Debresser violated policy by insisting on using unreliable and incomplete sources, and yet still haven't found one that gives the date. I will admit that I don't edit book pages very often, so I'm not aware that those articles are so lax in following policy, but if so, that is not my problem. If you don't like that, then get the guidelines and policies changed first. Until then, I will continue to enforce policy where it needs to followed, when I see it, including on author pages, though I'm not going to go out of my way to find such violations. - BilCat (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please refrain from laying assumptions on me, or attributing motives to me which do not exist. In the version of the page I edited, there was no release date given, so there was no need for me to address it. And while your desire to adhere to the guidelines and policies is admirable, you also need to learn to "play well with others". This isn't a prison, and nothing here is chiseled in stone. Additionally, storming in here and demanding that everyone bow to your desires is not the best way to get people to work well with you. Perhaps next time, a simple inquiry on the talk page without any edit warring would be the best course. WP:BRD, while only an essay, is a very good approach to take. If you make an edit, and someone reverts it, go immediately to the talk page and start a discussion rather than engaging in an edit war. We all want to the encyclopedia to be accurate and of good quality, but no one here appreciates rules Nazis. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I will also note that Joe removed more than I was willing to leave in the article. I'm fine with citing Goodreads as a source for the release date, as long as we note a more reliable soure is needed. And that's really all this was about to begin with. After a source (Goodreads) was provide, all I did at that point was to tag it as unreliable, which was then improperly removed. As to you advice on "playing well with others" it's odd your singling me out on this, as it clearly takes to two edit war. And I don't appreciate being called an anything-Nazi, even indirectly, and I take that as a clear personal attack. If you're trying to defuse a volatile situation, it's not working. If you're just trying to make me angry, you've succeeded. - BilCat (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Goodreads is not a reliable source for pretty much anything as there is no way to determine the actual source of the information there. That's why I removed it. The facebook page of Timothy Zahn, one of the authors of the book, is a good source to use, however, so that's why I left it in and removed the verification needed tag. As for your feelings, your actions fall clearly into the realm of the commonly-understood meaning of "rules Nazi", whether you like it or not. Just learn to be a little more flexible for the good of the project, and things will work out much better. No one needs or wants a rules-thumper screaming in their face for no real reason. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I see you persist with the personal attacks, after being warned not to do since, which is unacceptable under most circumstances, especially from an admin. You should well know that Nazi is a loaded term, and not likely to be well-taken in situations such as this. From this point on I will ignore any advice or lecturing from you here, and further such attacks will be addressed per WP policies. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It was not meant as an attack, but rather a description of how you were acting. That you took it as an attack is your problem. You have the power to choose when you take offense. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
BilCat is overdoing things here,and should definitely relax and have some fun. As I maintained form the beginning, this is not an issue that is likely to be challenged, and therefore there is no rule on Wikipedia that says we need a source, more so a good source. By the way, I never was an admin, to the best of my knowledge. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2015‎ (UTC)
My apologies for confusing you with another user, evidently. I'm through discussing this issue here, however, and I will challenge such information in the future, if I judge the source to be unreliable. I will, however, try not to engage in edit warring, and I hope you will cease edit warring also. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding [15]. We don't usually accept Facebook or foras, because in general they are not WP:RS. Now, the sources here do seem to be based on the authors themselves posting on Facebook or said fora, and the information is not very controversial. I'd suggest asking on WP:RSN for their suggestion. For now, I'd suggest keeping the content but using the {{unreliable sources}} because, well, those sources are not reliable per our policies - until such a time the book titles are announced in a more reliable source, such as a website. Through perhaps such a template is not necessary (see also WP:NOYT). Again, ask at RSN.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally, you are correct about facebook posts. However, when it is known the account belongs to the the person, it is generally considered a reliable source of information. Since at least one of his publishers has a link to that facebook page, we can be quite positive it is his. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nihonjoe here. Also, Piotrus, you posted after consensus had already been reached, and it might have been better to let things be. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Chronology: War of Honor and Crown of Slaves

I'm rereading the Honorverse stories in chronological order (as based on the table in the article), and I have serious problems with the ordering of War of Honor and Crown of Slaves. Right now, War of Honor is listed as happening before Crown of Slaves. Yet the restart of the war between Manicore and Haven in War of Honor is at least partially predicated by actions in Crown of Slaves. Given all that, what is the justification for the two books being listed in the order that they're listed? (I don't want to change the order if there's a good reason for the order.) Fredrik Coulter (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It is possible they happen somewhat simultaneously. There are several of the books right around then which have all kinds of overlap between them as far as chronology. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that it is reasonable, given the publication dates. This means that WoH contains no/no explicit references to occurrences in CoS with the exception of Erewhon's discontent and eventual defection from the Alliance, which although assisted by Cachat during the events in CoS, was occurring more from the High Ridge government's actions than from Cachat's scheming. Noting that CoS occurs within the WoH timeline is sufficient in my mind.
Unfortunately, the placement of ToF in the timeline, while valid from a start date perspective, fails because of publication dates, which means that references are made as early as Chapter 9 of ToF to events occurring in SoS and AAC. IMHO, the minimum fix for ToF needs to be to comment that the other two books' events occur simultaneously, and it may be better to read them before ToF. 142.118.123.150 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Honorverse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Honorverse. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Honorverse. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honorverse. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Short Story

  • Noir Fatale – by Larry Correia and Kacey Ezell
  • Recruiting Exercise - David Weber

2600:6C55:7600:14C8:DCB7:CF72:29BD:564B (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This same editor posted a duplicate of this message at Talk:David_Weber_bibliography#Short_story, which is the appropriate place. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honorverse/Archive_2&oldid=1222098416"