Talk:1632 series/Archive 2

Project References[edit]

Please edit and sign into the following list (Pending a real Projects Page) if this project is an area of your interest and expertise:

User talk:Piotrus -- User:Piotrus / --
user talk:fabartus -- User:fabartus / Frank -- fabartus at comcast.net -- FrankB 01:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Articles List[edit]

<--- Please annotate with bare user name if you are actively tackling part of the article rather than edit browsing. Add your name in italics if interested but over commited on time.

Timely updates needed on: List_of_science_fiction_novels#1632verse titles

Assiti Shards Multiverse Articles[edit]

Miscellaneous Articles and tasks[edit]

Many Worlds hypothesis
[[Category:Books available as ebooks]] -- Nds research, and article hopping to apply cat to articles, and check versus other missing categories.

Talk:1632 series/Archive 2/TODO's

TO-DO LIST by Article Number[edit]

***** TO-DO Notes for the above by numbers: *****

1) Flag Ship article of starship Troopers caliber, extensive synopsis, decent historical setting, events, characters sub major and sub minor, neohistorical divergence, lots of references and cites

2) Highlights of everything, and the kitchen sink - ties all book article together and links to all others by way of refence to more detailed treatment, Talk is temporary Projects Page.

3) Will be recap, neohistorical setting at opening (CPE), synopsis, timeline segment, new characters sub major and sub minor

4) Needs much expanded with sections by GG vol., each will have story timeline, synopsis, author, discussion of how story elements impact main line thread, etc.

6) Stub article with forward from book which needs excerpted, despite permission of author.

7) CURRENT IMPLIMENTED AS A REDIRECT to Parallel universe (fiction) Our Article to be written so explains Assoc. w/Assiti shards, recaps beginning, holds chronological account of 1632-verse 'neohistory' which is presented in briefer form in ref (2) and introduces parrallel univcerses.

8) Currently holds syopsis effort on line, to hold the detailed historical background now in 1632 (novel)

9) Need discussion on how to format this, whether it be comprehensive Master List or be done at all.

10) Content and presentation of expanded and revised Assiti Shards series should be moved to this title and used as a See Main Article link in the history of the series sections across the whole project.

Project Categories List (1)[edit]

There is a note below exlaining this post (1). These are names we're using. These are here so you can cut them and paste them between windows eliminating typing.

DO NOT USE: [[Category:Novel sequences]] per Category talk:Novel sequences ca. 4 May 2006 this is for serialized Novels. DO NOT USE. FrankB 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:1632 series]] — FYI: This is new main category being applied by AWB edits at the end of April 2006 by the category 'partrol' folks. FrankB 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [[Category:Eric Flint books]][reply]

[[Category:Alternate history timelines]]

[[Category:Assiti Shards multiverse]]

[[Category:Books available as ebooks]]

[[Category:Fictional universes]]

[[Category:Series of books]]

[[Category:Science fiction series]]

and categories of likely recruits[edit]

[[Category:Virtual communities]] [[Category:Science fiction websites]]

Most of the above names / links are fine. Two redlinks (Eric Flint Books) and the new generic category which was moved to a different name. See below and Piotr's talk. FrankB 01:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Issue Revisited-Standards Applied[edit]

FYI: This bears on the above minor spate on categorization. This Category:1632-163x alternative-history series is now DEAD, DEAD, Dead— replaced by the title Category:1632 series.

Apparently the category 'polizia' didn't like the long named version and have used AWB to update these articles across the board like this example. FrankB 18:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Old Talk[edit]

Heading 'Old Business' to 'Category Issue Revisited removed to Talk:1632 series/Archive1 this date. Most of the text was the category name debates. I kept the later section as it recaps the outcome of the category names matter. // FrankB 09:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved archieve to Talk:1632 series/Archive1, had misfiled it under 1632/Archive1 back when. // FrankB 09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting of Blocked quotes[edit]

Cut from: User talk:Renata3, as a courtesy on length grounds.

Thanks for the courtesy of a heads up but I hesitate to look at what your legalistic turn of mind has 'done'. Those articles were rough enough as it was, and I'd checked with competent legal authority, BD2412 on whether it was doable for a while.

I did and do have plans to excerpt eventually into shorter passages, but there is far too much work 'serious' work on the 'series' as a whole for an (effectively) sole editor, much less one with responsibilities to four other wikiprojects (This is one sub-project, albeit unofficial, which is itself part of WPP:series which I'm trying to find time to 'revive;, hoping it will draw some help for these!)

The quoted text was Quote 'outside the work proper and not really protected by copyright' Unquote... which means GFDL and all other licensing is really moot. And that from the guy that advises the foundation and Jimbo all the time. It is of course even more 'legal' on the en.wp hosted here in the USA (Fair Use), and I somehow doubt these are going to see much high priority in the way of being adapted to ja.wp, or even fr.wp, et. al. The series could catch on abroad the way Tolkein built over the years until thirty-years later it was a hit abroad, but somehow I doubt rednecks and hillbilly American stereo types cast as protagonists will travel very far in Africa or Arabic. Not going to happen in India either. Maybe Japan, but I digress.

Nonetheless, I attributed and got permission and boxed it, save for fixing one such a copy editing as a favor for me messed with that. If you think on it, those bits are to the author and the late publishers benifit, regardless. I can see more merit in a general 'unecyclopediac' interpretation (or charge), but that's subject to counter-interpretation and editorial difference of opinion.

Frankly, all this pop-stuff is unencyclopediac, but it's in and unless very unnotable, stays in despite numerous Afd's. I still haven't had time to catch up to even begin to stub in something for the 1634: The Galileo Affair, and the next novel is out now in ebook and will see hardcover in late September or October at the latest.

I shudder... to say, you missed half of them. If you thought the initial 1632 novel prologe, which was the evolution path I was just beginning to go down as a way around explaining things the author does so much better was unsuitable, then we really do have a disagreement.

How pray tell is an attributed quote unencyclopedic? We're reporting (really just recording) 'what is therein', no interpretation needed. It's the authors own words, not our encyclopia that seems 'unencylopedic', and the readers are smart enough to draw the distinction, we were merely passing those along... much like listing the periodic table of elements or the various interpretations of nine-ten or eleven planets (or planetoids) in our solar system.

I have to think on this more, but quite a few experienced editors have been through those pages answering one question or another for me, and no one has been quite so blatantly bold so as to change it without asking about it. The legal dialog was satisfactory for them in those instances. If you want to take over or just share the burden, then well and good. I'd much rather be doing science and history, than literature, and I'm far too busy with the commons interwiki categorization project formulation at this point to really know what more to say. // FrankB 09:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lengthy response :)

Just a simple question: how many other articles you have seen quoting lengthy passages from primary sources? Laws, prologues, interviews, books, whatever? How many real encyclopedias (Encarta, the beloved Britannica) have done that? Not too many. We even developed a separate project, the WikiSource, not to let it happen in WP. And we even have a nice page saying don't do it.

Another thingie. Quote is a couple of sentences and not as whole pages of stuff. Even yourself put all kinds of (c) in that yellow box to indicated it's copyrighted. So I don't buy "copyrights are fine" argument.

Yes, I know too well that the articles are in a horrible state, but yellow boxes with copyrighted, unencyclopedic material does not help a tiny bit. I really appreciate your devotion and efforts (to 1632 and other projects) and I hate to do it (believe it or not). I am reading the Galileo affair, so I might find some time to help out.

In short, I feel very strongly about it. Renata 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange_2[edit]

Sorry about the length. I get that way when tired.

The help would be truly good and very welcome. My point is/was the quotes were informative to someone trying to find something out about the books... and concurrently respectful of my limited time to volunteer to diverse wikiProjects... I'm now hip deep in several such sub-cultures. I'm afraid overall, that guidelines are good when a stub is matured, but these were just stubs.

I really haven't had nor do I have today time to take a deep look at what you did. I really just got back into this after letting it sit nearly six weeks over other commitments on the commons, etc. The break gave me some fresh insights as to how to organize, and p/o that is revitalizing WPP:series, another 'responsibility' that is a Right thing that I don't need at the moment... but there you have it. Someone needs to do something to kick start it! SO do drop in and help.

I just did what seemed best as a temporary measure for something that is growing incredibly fast now that the kinks are out of the milieu design, as it were... GG#8 is out in e-version and I haven't gotten into VI and VII yet, save for skimming for this need. Time presses. I'm not really upset. Was late and very tired when it 'Hit me', I'd figured this would happen eventually. But this is a case of Finagle's law—a worst possible moment for me. See: user:fabartus/tmp2 for distraction insights. Best regards // FrankB 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on 1632 universe background history[edit]

Query moved from Fabartus: this date // FrankB 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was randomly looking at new articles and came across this one, which you seem to have created. I felt the tone was a bit unencyclopedic, more of an informal essay than a proper article, and tagged it for style editing, but since it seems to have sprung up in a pretty much intact form, I was wondering if you'd care to share what you think should be done with it, and so forth. I'm also a tad concerned about a copyvio since Talk:1632 series indicates it was adapted. I'm sure if it was copied from somewhere it can be fixed, but I'd still like to know. FrozenPurpleCube 23:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no Copyright issues with it at all. It doesn't have a blockquote from the books like some 'quick' pages on the books in the series did. That measure was indirectly Okayed by the foundations lawyer anyway as a temporary measure.

This was all from what I call my (original and first) 'Vomitous edit' on 1632 (novel), when there were only three or four articles in the series. So, alas, the style is just 'Me' on a roll when the words are flowing. And yes, it's in need of overhaul for style. As the premise piece and deep background of the series—which is frankly why I read it—it's good common material.

I've just been very tied up in interwiki projects, mediations, and real life since late summer, and went 'wiki-missing' for most of the last five (and totally gone the last three) months until recently. Then again, it was always shoved off whilst trying to build pages for the newer books, which are being released about every 3-4 months. I'm just now starting to settle back into having time to devote regularly to the wiki's, and will be getting to it in the next month or so if no one else has. I'm more concerned that there are at least two novels articles that aren't really even stubs yet, so if you know the series (Yer user name is interestingly suggestive of Honorverse), do pitch in and help. Hope that helps. Have a happy New Year! // FrankB 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, name didn't come from the Manticore of the Honorverse, though I have heard of it and read a few of the books. I haven't kept up with the series, but I have read 1632 and one of the sequels, so I do feel I could work on the style/tone a bit. I just didn't want to start doing so until I knew more of the article's history. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know from painful personal experience that I'm not a good copy editor for my own prose, at least in a big body length like this page. So feel free, with my blessings and well wishes... and a few cheers. // FrankB 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States of Europe[edit]

Greeting all. I just created the page United States of Europe (1632 series), so that we don't start overlapping with the political science page United States of Europe. I'm going through the 1632 pages to change relevant links; could you please make sure I've done so on any pages you've written? Obviously, please help develop the new page, too. Thanks, samwaltz 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xpost answer user talk:samwaltz#Very belated thanks

... for this good move and the note you left on 1632 series. I'm afraid I suck at watching my watch list, and even so, was buried back then with launching WP:TSP (and since too! But it keeps me out of the bars at night and off the streets! <g>)

This is a great read by the way, if you've the least interest in the underpinnings of the modern world and where it came from, and the genesis of ideas we all take for granted these days. A load of laughs and educational and thought provoking all in one swell foop! Who could ask for more (OK - there is more! -- and the first two novels and anthology are all available for free on the Baen Free Library!) Cheers, and again, thanks! // FrankB 04:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of real-world characters[edit]

“Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden” is wrongly placed in the list of real historical characters. “Adolphus” was not his surname but a middle name. As far as I know his full name was Gustv Adolf Vasa. Consequently, he should be placed right before Albrecht von Wallenstein.

2007-03-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.114.161.209 (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- Thanks for that, and while he is known and understood by the Dynastic name of Vasa, in English historical literature (not in fiction, but by historians, social scientists and so forth), he's generally designated by Gustavus Adolphus, or occasionally "Gustavus the Great". I'll likely do a double entry to cover the "issue" from all sides. How we do the many and varied characters in this series is going to be a problem no matter what we do. There are a whole lot of them, historical and fictional that figure in. // FrankB 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In “1633” the Swedish politician Axel Oxenstierna is mentioned as well as the English soldier Oliver Cromwell. The later is probably one of the few people the time travellers encounter that speaks English: his mother tongue might sound a bit strange but is compleatly understandable. Furthermore, “1634: the Galileo Affair” is about Galileo Galilei being charged for heresy and what wound have happened with time travellers around.

2007-03-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Well, the authors are probably taking a bit of literary license with this aspect -- you're absolutely correct! Just like Hollywood, in that regard. If it gets in the way of telling the story, ignore it, go around it, or just explain it away with a convenient choice of characters. I've started to do something with a scheme to organise the characters and places. Wish me luck! // FrankB 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a royalty Gustav II Adolf should be placed according to his first name. That means between emperor Ferdinand II of Germany and princess Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain.

2007-06-21 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

{{1632SHC}}[edit]

I've written a template for use in this list. J ɪ m p 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified this template to properly report the year of death as well as the year of birth. (Before, the year of birth was instead reported twice.) There is still an issue that the name field consistently yields a link to the WP article Name instead of the proper target but fixing that is beyond my current limited understanding of the templae code structure. Dravecky 20:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimp, I've given it some use, but in the main, suspect adapting it for better display needs on 1632 characters vice 1632 series will be the only way we'll need to keep it around in the long run. I've a couple of stabs at similar templates, that will probably also go by the board, but whatever improves things, even short term, is a good thing. // FrankB

Length of this article[edit]

This article appears to have some internal repetition, and perhaps some of the Grantville Gazette GG content could go to the GG page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrold (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: this edit point

Yeah, can't agree more. Would be much simpler had AFD not acted to take away supportive articles on notability grounds, but that's life on wikipedia. I've no time to watch a watchlist, and until the community "grows up and takes on a mature viewpoint and makes mandatory" notifications for AFD'S, SUCH hodgepodges will be the outcome. OTOH, been too busy getting infrastructure in place for linking (see {{16char}} and especially the pages it's displayed help links too) to go back through the main articles, including the series page. Once we've got all {{gazettes} caught up, we'll be doing that. Currently working on semi-automating those, with boilerplate templates. Should give a nice uniform outcome and style.
There's lots to do, so feel free to do what you like to help. Without a formal wikiproject, as yet, or an appeal yet made at Baen's Bar (soon, I hope), there aren't a lot of regular contributors to the pages currently. Most seem to have drifted off under pressure of RL the last two years. Heck, we've novels like 1634: The Galileo Affair without good articles currently! // FrankB 17:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]