Jump to content

Talk:Honor Harrington

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

Spoilers

[edit]

There are some major spoilers for At All Costs in the text. Granted, this is in the spoiler section, but it's a lot more accessible, and easy for somebody to be accidentally spoiled (it's justifiable to post spoiler warnings for say Ashes of Victory due to the nature of the series) than in the 'snerkers only' forum on Baen's Bar which is the only other place I've seen that information online.

Just the first words in the text : "Honor Stephanie Alexander-Harrington" spoils the fact that she becomes White Haven's wife. I wish I didn't read that, since I'm just about to start "Echoes of Honor" ! Heemphil (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia's Spoiler policy and the Wikipedia manual of style for fiction. It expliciltly states: Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted or omitted, as doing so directly contradicts the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy.
Wikipedia is not a fan page. In short, Wikipedia contains spoiler, live with it. Magidin (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spoilers may well be part of the psuedo-academic remit of WP. Suppose - as I have - a newer reader comes looking for non plot-specific information (in this instance the order of titles). It is unhelpful - almost deliberately careless - to reveal, without warning, in the earliest sentences of the article summary significant details from books well into the run of books (in this case injuries sustained during the series making Honor comparable with a certain historic figure). Firstly this is detail not appropriate to the initial section of the article and, further, adds little value to that summary. Spoilers may be deemed acceptable, but there's still a right way to go about it whilst managing to respect the fresh reader. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Wikipedia's policies and manual of style explicitly that spoilers should not, under any circumstance, be deleted or omitted. There are general Wikipedia-wide content disclaimers. The order of the books is not an issue of the Honor Harrington page, but of the general Honorverse page, which, as it happens, does not contain the "spoilers". Wikipedia is not a fan page, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Magidin (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Married name (was "Spoilers") 2015

[edit]
It doesn't really matter what Wikipedia's policies are. It's simply inconsiderate when the spoilers in question show up in Google's except for the page, and this is the very first hit for Honor Harrington in the search engine. I discovered the same spoiler the earlier poster was complaining about when I went online to look for the book order. I had no intentions of reading the wikipedia page, but there it was right in front of me, unavoidable. My ability to appreciate the series as a whole was negatively impacted by a spoiler that I had no business seeing. I don't care if that spoiler is deeper in the page, because if you come to Wikipedia, you're here at your own risk and that's the site's policy, but it shouldn't be in the first line such that it appears in Google's except. This is akin to Google's homepage saying "Jack is Tyler Durden." It extends beyond the scope of Wikipedia's own policies. Azuarc (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not Wikipedia's fault that Google decides to put spoilers at the top of it's searches, complain to Google instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might feel better if the spoiler in question showed up anywhere else at all in the grandiose summary of the series below. I amended one of the sentences to at least mention her marriage, but previously it was naming her Alexander-Harrington to no real consequence. And this is not a Google problem; it's a Wikipedia problem. The same issue comes up with other search engines as well. I have no qualms about the name appearing in the article, only that it should not be used in the first 25 words of the body. Azuarc (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a "wikipedia problem" when people expect the entire universe to accommodate them and do things for their benefit. Magidin (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a little harsh. It costs Wikipedia and its users nothing to keep spoilers out of an article introduction as long as the relevant information can be found in the article body. Then it's a win-win for everybody. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey. that is where you're wrong. Omitting spoilers comes at great cost. It would mean Wikipedia would have to severely cut most of its plot sections, which would render them grossly incomplete. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must've misread my comment. At no time did I suggest omitting any spoilers. I simply agreed that spoilers belong in the body of the article, not the introduction. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old discussion, and I personally always thought we should have spoiler hidden expandable texts, but - the community has long ago decided this is not to be. Now, I agree that if possible, we should not stress certain spoilers in the lead, but sometimes it is not possible. For example, if Honor was to die, such a fact should be mentioned in the lead, because, well, it is a key biographical information. Name, which may indicate marriage, is another encyclopedic element that is hard to omit. It is unfortunate, but it is also common sense: if you don't want spoilers, don't use the Internet to look up information about a given topic. Of course, I understand one may just want to look for a book reading order, and some spoiler will be included, but here I will say it is really Google's snippet showing policy that you one should blame. Wikipedia is not censored, for spoilers, age, religion or governments, and that's the end. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The married name of a fictional character does not need to be in the article's introduction. In this case, the common name (Honor Harrington) is just fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it is amazing that Debresser can accuse me of edit warring after just a single edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indenting for readability) Here's my take, in the hopes of achieving consensus before we keep reverting and re-reverting... The issue of Spoilers is really a red herring, in so far as editorial decisions should not be predicated on "spoiler" issues (whether for or against); we don't decide what to include or where using "this will spoil the series" as a rationale (or even worse, "putting this here will mean that people using search engines will have the series spoiled for them"). By the same token, we don't decide to include something merely on the grounds that we must include anything that could be spoiler lest it seem like we are avoiding them. In other words: "spoiler" should be a complete non-issue. Now, the question here is then, really, about the name in the lede. The argument for putting the full (married) name is, as far as I can tell, the style guide on biographies, which reads:

"While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)."

However, a key point a few lines later is: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname."

I realize that these guidelines are for biographies of actual people, not fictional characters; I could not find guidelines for fictional characters. So really the question here: what is the most commonly used name for this character? To justify using "Honor Harrington" alone in the lead, then the case must be made that this is the most commonly used name for the character (issues of spoilers are, as I mention above, a red herring and irrelevant). To justify using the married name in the lead instead means that a case must be made that it is the married name that is the most commonly used name. Shall we try to find consensus on those terms? Magidin (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. At the end of the day, there's no compelling reason for "revealing" the complete name of this fictional character in the introductory paragraph of the article, especially since the entire series of books refers to her as Honor Harrington, no doubt as a literary nod to Horatio Hornblower. There's no issue with any content being "hidden", since her marital status is explored in detail in the body of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the articles of some royalty and people in general, and I see that the standard is to have the full name in the first line. Please see WP:FULLNAME that this is a clear Wikipedia guideline: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph".
In addition, Scjessey, stop editing warring, trying to impose your point of view in place of the previous stable version, or I will have to report you, with possibly dire consequences for you. Let me be very clear, I have completely had it with editors who try to enforce their opinion in the middle of ongoing discussions. This has become a matter of fashion lately, and it will stop! Debresser (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be fucking kidding me. Go ahead and report me, please. You will only be embarrassing yourself. "Dire consequences" my fat arse. You falsely accused me of edit warring after I had made a single reversion, which obviously means you haven't bothered to read WP:3RR. In fact, with your ludicrous comment above, a reasonable case of WP:OWN can be made against you. I beg you to report me at WP:ANI so you can become a laughing stock. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are already on the wrong foot, Scjessey, when you start talking about "there is no compelling reason for "revealing" the complete name of this fictional character." You are on the wrong foot because once again you are trying to base your argument on the notion of spoilers. I repeat: spoilers are a red herring and a non-issue. If you cannot make a case without refering to spoilers, either implicitly or explicitly, then you don't have a case. You say what I proposed was "reasonable", but you then failed to engage with it and instead began your argument with an implicit reference to spoilers. Stick to the issue at hand.
Now, as Debresser notes, when there is a lack of consensus and we are trying to reach it, the standard practice is to maintain the status quo (long-term stable version) until the consensus is reached; you took the lack of consensus as license for putting forth the version that is causing the lack of consensus. Let's try to stick to standard practices.
Finally, Debresser, I will note that there are exceptions to the rule of using the full name as the lead of the first sentence. To pick an example, look at Nellie Bly, where the pen name has primacy (yes, full name is added at the end of the first sentence). I agree with you that generally speaking the full name seems to be added in the first sentence, though that seems to be mostly for listing birth/maiden names for people whose most common name is not the birth name. Under that format, one would list "Honor Harrington" first if this is the name by which she is mostly known (which I would be inclined to think is the case), and either in parentheses or at the end of the sentence the full name as it currently stands in the series. Magidin (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added: As an example, consider Lord Voldemort, which contains the character's real name (a major plot point in the second book) in the first sentence. Magidin (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2: All guidelines are that the full name should be in the lead paragraph; it does not have to be the first sentence, but it definitely should be in the lead paragraph. To me, the only discussion is whether the article should lead with the name "Honor Harrington" and add the full name in that paragraph (or that sentence), or whether the article should lead with the full name. Omitting the full name from the lead paragraph is clearly not acceptable, and saying that the information will appear later in the article is not an out given the general style guidelines. Magidin (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the first instance of the name is the most logical location to have the full name, and that the alternative, repeating the name in full later in the lead, will almost for sure result in unnatural sentences/paragraph. Debresser (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely made up bullshit. Also, most of the guidelines you are quoting apply to real people, not fictional characters. Even the article for Superman doesn't mention Kal-El or Clark Kent until the second paragraph of the introduction. You guys are just making this shit up as you go along. The article would be much better using the WP:COMMONNAME at the beginning. And this has nothing to do with spoilers, which I don't give a shit about, but more to do with common fucking sense. And Magidin, please understand my reason for putting the word "revealing" in quotes was to show my argument was not about spoilers. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the fan-maintained wikia spoils that, and probably more so than we do: "Lady Dame Honor Stephanie Alexander-Harrington, PMV, SG, GCR, MC*, SC, OG, DSO*, CGM**, Steadholder Harrington, Duchess Harrington, Countess White Have". Encyclopedias do not have spoilers, live with it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That's completely mde up bullshit" is, of course, a very strong, reasonable, logical, and completely dispassionate argument. if that's the best you can manage, you don't have a case. We are not "making this shit up as [we] go along", we are quoting and refering you to the relevant style guides in Wikipedia. Now, if you cannot keep a civil tone, then stop talking. And, I don't buy it. Your first argument and your only argument is about not "revealing" stuff. So this is all about spoilers, and as such is moot. This is an encyclopedia. Magidin (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I can use whatever fucking "tone" I want. Second, this all started when I made this comment after you fired a shitty, dismissive comment at Azuarc. Then Debresser lectured me about omitting spoilers, and I noted I said nothing of the sort. I have no problem with spoilers whatsoever. I just think not having "Honor Harrington" (the common name of the character and the series) in the introduction is stupid, and the "spoilery" stuff is better off in the article body. That doesn't violate any fucking policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, and after 20,000 edits across 5,000 articles I have a pretty good working knowledge of said policies and guidelines. If you hadn't initially been so rude to Azuarc, I probably wouldn't have commented at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"First of all I can use whatever fucking "tone" I want." Kindly consult Wikipedia's code of conduct on civility. Magidin (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you started it with your attack on Azuarc, and then making incorrect assumptions about my intent. So maybe you shouldn't be lecturing me. You and Debresser have a serious WP:OWN problem on this article, it seems. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly meant my comment on Azurac to be dismissive, given both the tone and content of his/her demand (and let's remember what that was: that because (s)he got spoiled while doing a google search, then Wikipedia must change its content; and explicitly, that "it doesn't matter what Wikipedia's policies are"; and that his getting spoiled is "Wikipedia's problem"; are you telling me that deserved a point-by-point careful rebuttal?), it certainly did not include the kind of level of personal insult and profanity that your contributions have escalated to. I've also tried to make my case for the terms of the consensus building and the article in a dispassionate manner and with reference to specific and explicit Wikipedia policies, and the replies I've gotten for this effort are "You are making this shit up", "I will speak any fucking way I want", and "This is completely made up bullshit". Again, the guidelines all indicate (and examples such as Lord Voldemort support) that the full name should be in the lead paragraph. I explicitly noted it doesn't have to be the lead sentence, or even the lead of the article. In fact, I would agree that the common name probably also ought to be included in the lead paragraph if we are to begin with the full name (for example, the way it is handled in Dr. Watson), and that if a case can be made that "Honor Harrington" should in fact be the leading name (as it is in Lord Voldemort, where the common name goes before the full name, or in Nellie Bly), then it should lead the article. However, all guidelines indicate that in that case, the full name should still be in the lead paragraph. What reason, on the basis of guidelines or other similarly situated articles, do you have for omitting the full name entirely from the lead and put in "in the article body"? The only example that has been mentioned so far is Superman, where the "birth name" is still in the lead of the article, beginning the second paragraph (Batman likewise leads the second paragraph with the secret identity) but on the other hand, Wolverine has the birth name and Logan in the first paragraph, second sentence, still in the lead. As it happens, I would support leading off with Honor Harrington, but all style guidelines indicate the full name still needs to be in the lead, and quite likely the first paragraph (though, as I said before, not necessarily the first sentence). Magidin (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of this would have been a problem for me if "Honor Harrington" on Wikipedia referred to the series and not the character. If this article was "Honor Harrington (character)" and there was a separate article for the series that was the one that came up on Google, I wouldn't have been complaining. Yet, instead, the series is lumped in with the Honorverse page instead.
Regardless, I'm willing to follow up on Magidin's suggestion to put the character name up front and mention the married name later. The character is known as Honor Harrington. For the majority (so far) of the series, she's Honor Harrington (or at least not Alexander-Harrington). And because it's also the series title, that's the name we should operate by. If we prioritize the common name, not only does it make Alexander-Harrington not the absolute first thing a person's eyes will stumble across, but there's the possibility we can push it back far enough to not make Google's excerpt. You said it just has to be somewhere in the first paragraph, right? Azuarc (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, that is not a suggestion I am making, it is an alternative I am saying is open and I might support, provided a solid case, on the basis of Wikipedia's policies can be made for it. You are not making that: you are trying to make a case on the basis of hiding spoilers, and that is, quite simply, a completely inappropriate basis. What Google shows or does not show is irrelevant. What is or is not a spoiler is irrelevant. What the majority of people know or do not know is irrelevant. Magidin (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence to the opening that would accommodate mention of the full name. Is that acceptable? Azuarc (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; you are still trying to omit the full name. And since we are trying to build consensus, you ought to perhaps make suggestions on the talk page before trying to implement them. Now, the vast majority of examples I see for fictional characters have the full name first, or immediately after the "common name"; at worse, they are in the second sentence. The only examples I see where this is not the case is Superman and Batman, and there we are talking almost about alternate personalities rather than full name vs. common name. In fact, for most of the series she is known as "Steadholder Honor Harrington", "Countess Honor Harrington", or "Duchess Honor Harrington" (first two from book 4 onwards). As to the series, it's not called "Honor Harrington". In fact, Honor Harrington series redirects to the article about the series (which is Honorverse). Even leading with "Honor Harrington", the full name ought to be almost immediately after; and for most articles, it actually seems to go the other way around (e.g., Dr. Watson, which reads "John H. Watson, known as Dr. Watson...) So, again: what are the grounds for omitting the full name? If the only grounds is "let's not have it be the first thing people see when they do a google search", then that is quite simply not a valid reason. Magidin (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 :::takes a deep breath::: First off, I agree with Magidin that no further changes should be made to the article until we have established a consensus for what is best. It appears we have two editors who think the full character name should be right at the beginning, and two who would prefer to see the full name pushed down the article a bit... stalemate. I think the best way to move forward without things getting all heated up again is to create a Request for Comment. More editors with more opinions may complicate things (and draw them out), but it might also break the stalemate. Does anyone else think this is the way to go? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to get other people into the discussion; ideally it would be people who have been involved in this page in the past, but that does not seem to be happening. If RfC is not too much of a deal and will bring in editors to look at this, fine. Magidin (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose an RFC. WP:SPOILERS and WP:FULLNAME are both clear instructions. RFC is a serious process, not meant for editors who have the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is a big deal. Fair enough, I guess. Can we just get a neutral third party to come in and take a look then? Not a full blown RFC, but perhaps a request for mediation? Magidin (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser - WP:FULLNAME doesn't say anything about fictional characters, and it is only a guideline anyway. WP:SPOILERS doesn't apply because we aren't talking about removing any spoilers, just moving a single spoiler down into the body of the article. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't apply because we have equal numbers of editors on both sides of the issue. I don't know why you would think an RfC is a problem. It's less troublesome than going through standard dispute resolution. The only reason I can think of for opposing an RfC is because you are concerned about its outcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:FULLNAME is as valid for real-life characters as it is for fictional characters.
  2. WP:SPOILERS does apply, because you want to use the spoiler argument to move it down, against the fact that the usual place of this information would be the lead.
  3. Your insinuation about my motives is a violation of WP:NPA. I just see no reason to waste precisou time because of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your so-called "refute" and raise you:

  1. WP:FULLNAME makes absolutely no mention of what to do with fictional characters, and as I said earlier it is just a guideline that can easily be overridden by consensus.
  2. WP:SPOILERS does not apply, because it doesn't say anything about where information should be in an article, only whether or not it exists.
  3. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT does not apply because, as I said earlier, there are an equal number of editors on both sides of the argument.
  4. You have offered no compelling reason, whether based on policy or just common sense, for the character's full name to be lower down in the article. All your attempts at WP:WIKILAWYERING have failed.

All we want to do is offer the best article for all readers, and I believe it makes sense to use WP:CONSENSUS (or even, if necessary, WP:IAR) to achieve that. No harm will come to anyone by doing that. Your obsessive need to cling to guidelines that don't even really apply (not even in spirit) and throw around bullshit accusations of personal attacks is troubling, and you should probably consider taking a step back from the article until you can learn not to take things so personally. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say that I disagree that the Full name conventions "don't apply even in spirit". I think they do apply, at least in spirit. It is also a convention that seems to be followed throughout fictional character pages. That said, the page has a lot of issues (in particular, it is definitely too much in-universe and could use a substantial re-write (for which I certainly don't have either the time or the reliable sources to discuss the character out-of-universe). Magidin (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scjessey, "you should probably consider taking a step back from the article until you can learn not to take things so personally". These words of yours are tailor-made for you. You do understand that after accusing me of what is obviously your own problem here, you have lost all credibility? WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud. Will the two of you simmer down? Magidin (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like an actual RfC was launched, but... For what it's worth, I agree that COMMONNAME principally relates to the article title, while FULLNAME controls how the name of the subject is introduced. And even in the absence of a guideline on point, it makes sense to me to tell the reader the full name of the character in the introduction. I don't think we need to care whether this is a spoiler or reveals anything; this is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage, and anyone coming here should expect a full and complete treatment of the subject. Nathan T 19:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that, years later, I'm still rather sore about this. My hope was to keep other people from being as annoyed as I was about having their book ruined for them. I fully understand and accept Wikipedia's policy on spoilers -- in general -- but I do find it obnoxious that I can be looking up something else entirely and have my reading experience ruined by an overly-aggressive assertion that keeping the name in the lead is somehow protecting academic integrity. It is my personal opinion -- for which I expect no action to be taken -- that fictional characters should be treated differently from historical figures. I realize it was mentioned that the fansites have even more elaborate information revealed, but that's a non-starter for me. They aren't first in SEO for virtually everything on the internet.

I know nothing is going to be done about this. I just wanted to return to express that this did majorly and adversely affect my enjoyment of the book during which this spoiler applies to, and that I'm extremely angry -- have been extremely angry -- with Wikipedia and their inflexibility for the last three years for it. And I still don't understand why this page isn't called "Honor Harrington (character)". The rebuttal was that the series isn't called Honor Harrington, but if that were true, why do we call it that on the Honorverse page?

In any event, I've spoken with my wallet. I used to donate every year to Wikipedia. I stopped after this fiasco. I still use the site, but I no longer support it. Azuarc (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Nobody cares. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological List of Stories

[edit]

Is there an existing chronological list of stories? If not, would that be a good section to add?

I am currently re-reading the series, but this time in the order of date published. Unfortunately, I am finding that some of the collections have stories that are out of order. A chronological list would start with the story of Stephanie Harrington, and then the doctor who uncovers the murder of another tree cat's person, etc. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 06:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible feature of such a list would be to identify duplicate chapters, where the exact same text appears in several stories. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 06:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the correct page for such a list; the correct page would be the Honorverse page... where such a list already exists, under Stories listed by internal chronology. Magidin (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Honor Harrington. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honor Harrington. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honor Harrington. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

missing

[edit]

Is it just too painful to write about Harrington's two (unless I'm mistaken) children, considering that they and her mother may have died in the attack on Manticore? Certainly I can't remember mention of them in later books but the situations weren't exactly right for family chatter. Which chapter of which book did I forget? 100.15.117.207 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honor_Harrington&oldid=1210737394"