Talk:Commonwealth Saga

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

Game[edit]

I have seen a lot of talk about these books involved in a computer game called Prime - can any one back this up?

What is this game? Are there any screen shots? Culverin? Talk 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The website for the studio creating the game is www.nigredostudios.com. The game doe sexist, it's just that there is little information at the moment. Have a look at my forums at www.geocities.com/mdchitty for some more info, including a reply by someone from the studio. chitman13 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked www.nigredostudios.com and your a liar. There is no Game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.22.85 (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

It seems to me that Judas Unchained and Pandora's Star could be merged into this article, as the individual components of the Hyperion Cantos have been. There is duplication between this article and those two. I may do this if I have time and nobody objects. Avriette 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the individual book articles as they stand, then merging was a good idea. However, I believe the Wiki policy on novels is that each book in an overall series gets its own page once there is enough information to warrant it. This is especially true once info boxes and the like are added to each novel. I'm working on a lot of other pages at the moment, but at some point I can see splitting the two books into their individual pages with plot summaries and publishing information added to them.--Werthead 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my copy-editing work I will add infoboxes to the sections for each novel and remove the standalone images currently present. Not being an expert on the subject, I will leave the decision whether to split these off into separate pages to someone else --carelesshx talk 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to merge the article Dyson Aliens with this one, as the former has been qualified for deletion. Maybe we should merge the article about the two books in this one, or include the two articles like this : {{:Pandora's Star}}<br/>{{:Judas Unchained}} 160.92.7.69 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the merge was needed, especially if its only motive is an AfD request. I would actually suggest undo'ing the merge and completing AfD discussion first. Alex Pankratov 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the risk was losing data, so I thought it was best to give up a little in order to same many. And I also did some corrections.
I know this kind of guys (or gals), they can convert admins to their points of view, by making sensible and godwilling editors look agressive and foolish, and by using the so-called rules to their own interest. I encountered some on fr:WP, and that came to one hell of a fight, ultimately, I quit and deleted my account, because I had enough of it (not before restoring peace and common sense on the articles I fought for).
(I'm the same as 160.92.7.68) 78.113.82.16 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am undoing the copy-and-paste merge. If the Dyson alien article is deleted, the content is now in this article's history for someone to snag some of it for inclusion here. Otherwise, it is silly to have it copy-and-pasted here -- esp. since there is no citation for the "notability" of these "Notable aliens". --EEMeltonIV 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sort of a citation would qualify to establish the notability as per your criteria ? Alex Pankratov 20:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am well aware of these "places". That's not what I asked about though. Or rather it was not the answer I was looking for. You come across very assertive in your cleanup effort, which to me implies that you well-versed in policies. Therefore I assume that you know that polices are based on a common sense and are open to a degree of interpretation. Another editor's interpretation was that your AfD was erroneous, and his opinion is as valid as anyone's. So I am interested to know what from your perspective would've established "the notability of aliens". Bouncing me to generic policy pages is not a bit helpful or relevant. Alex Pankratov 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholarly third-party commentary on the aliens. Some significant third-party commentary on them. The guidelines and policies make clear generally what types of sources one can turn to assert notability. If I knew where one could turn specifically for a source to assert the Dyson aliens' notability, I'd integrate the damn source into the article. I suspect no such source exists, therefore the aliens are non-notable and don't warrant more than a sentence or two's mention in the commonwealth series article. --EEMeltonIV 04:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's quite obvious that a vast majority of all fiction, including even best selling one, does not have scholars commenting on them. Which means as I said before that WP is going to end up with a wide assortment of Pokemon-related articles only. The bottom line is that the article contains non-trivial information that people are looking for. Purging the content should be an action of an absolutely last resort. I've been around WP for few years now, and it has become increasingly popular among editors and admins to nuke the content left and right based on formalities. "Non-notable. 3.. 2.. 1.. gone". In the end this sort of an attitude does not benefit anyone nor does it make WP better. It makes WP worse. I know there's a flurry of accompanying wiki-something projects, but you know how very popular they are. To sum it up - I'd like you to consider taking less formal approach when it comes to removing the content. It's all too easy to do and very hard to undo. Consider the larger picture. Alex Pankratov 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A note from a reader, 6 years later: I think Alex is (was) exactly right. Unless Wikipedia's funding issues require it to delete pages for mere disk-space (doubtful: if so, the older talk pages should go first), I would suggest that "non-notable" is always completely subjective. For instance, the characters of (the original) Beowulf story would be considered the niche-interest of a very small number of people (well, prior to the movie being made.) Still, to people reading that story and "analyzing" it (at whatever level), a WP page with detail is useful and notable--to them and the community of discussants. How many people need to discuss a thing before it is "notable"? Do just two or three scholars (and no one else) discussing a thing make it "notable?" This is a silly, angels-on-a-pinhead way of thinking about the issue. The hierarchical nature of knowledge means that both a brief (1 or 2 sentences) as well as a more in-depth presentation are warranted in a reference like WP, and let readers decide what level they wish to delve into it. Hypertext links were made for facilitating this. No one should ever be criticizing one or the other, saying only one formulation is right. Both are always right, if anyone wants to bother writing them. Almost by definition, if someone believes a WP page/article/section is worthwhile enough to write-up (and the topic is a description--not extension--of any mass-media production), then the topic is notable. The motive of an editor to reduce "long" content to shorter form is not universally good - but is based on the pervasive, systemic weakness of language as a communication medium. Yes, being succinct and brief is better than wordy--but succinctness sacrifices detail and presumes the reader's subjective, intuitive interpretation of the content is just as good as a high-resolution, detailed (wordy) objective explanation of what the writer (or content) intends to convey. This editor's assumption is extremely problematic--at least to some of us. In narratives, one really must choose between "short" or "detailed," but in a reference like WP, we can and should choose the best of both worlds: both. Stormculture (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These aliens are notable, in that they are mentionned all along the story, and, and that qualifies for extra-pandorasstar-judasunchained notability, they are mentionned all along "The Living Void", which is the sequel to the saga. They are notable, because, if a student has to review the book for class (why not?), he/she will have to mention and detail them. They are notable, because they help describe the universe, making people who don't know the books more aware of what's inside, helping them in the choice to read/not read the books. And, most of all, they are notable because the story depends on them. It's In-story notability. But isn't Darth Vader notable, at first, because he's the main villain in Star Wars? External notability comes FROM in-universe notability.
The Silfen, for example, are elf-like, and elf-inspired. Are elves notable? The Primes can be compared to the Zerg Overmind, or cerebrates in Starship troopers, it's a part of a traditional Sci-fi theme : elf-like aliens, swarm-like aliens, and calculator-like, logic-driven aliens (the raiel are like the vulcans, if I may say). The comparison itself would have an interest. No source to it? Original work I just made up to confort my sore self? I'd redirect you to sci-fi analysis books, unfortunately, I don't know any in english. So you win, taking advantage of my not being a living encyclopedia. WP will always stay a mainstream encyclo, if we aren't a little bit prolific about out-of-mainstream topics (like star trek). Oh, and what if I told you (which is true), that only Spock (because of his ears, that's totally true) is considered a notable Star trek character in France (i.e. known even by people who dunno the series). Would that allow me to delete articles on Kirk from FR:wp?
This is just an example to show you that what you call notability is totally POV dependant. Do afghan people see Vader as relevant to them? Like Alex Pankratov sis above, you can't dismiss everything just by summonning a regulation.
"Scholarly third-party commentary on the aliens" So if s/o writes on his school's blog that he asked his pupils to make an essay about the Primes, we should trust you would not dismiss it as being inconsequent...
"I am undoing the copy-and-paste merge" Who do you think you are? The debate has not ended, I think. I am starting to believe you consider yourself as an expert of which is good or which is not. No human is that.

160.92.7.69 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex Machina?[edit]

{{spoiler}}

Is the ending really Deus Ex Machina? I would vote not -- it seemed to me that the commonwealth figured out how to turn the field back on, and blew up the star in the gateway system, but it didn't seem abrupt or implausible to me. In particular, there are prime civilizations all over that area of the galaxy, so the situation is far from resolved. Also, we were learning about the research projects for the whole second book. Is every ending involving a machine deus ex machina? TheronJ 23:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree totally. I'd consider all three previous endings to Hamilton's series Deus Ex Machina's (Not that I personally have any problem with that). However in this book the main characters do get information about the Flare Bombs and use the theory to create the quantumbusters and nova bombs. They have figured out why the barrier generator got rendered non-functional, and solved the problem themselves.

The notion of deus ex machina is quite simple. If he were to have ended the book by sending hordes of MOABs at the bad guys, or a Starship Troopers type invading force -- bugs against soldiers -- it wouldn't be. However, he takes a very thinly described technology, extrapolates it further, and places the entire resolution of the book on the device. There isn't an ending in the sense that plot lines are followed through, that conflict is resolved. It is simply terminated. The quantum busters (magical devices) are applied to another magical device, the "dark fortress". The combination thereof, without any explanation as to how either work, nor how both work together, ends the major conflict. The rest of the military effort is as he described, a "mop up job."
Many books, especially in science fiction, are ended with a machine or device. Let me contrast, however, one of the recent Richard K. Morgan books. The protagonist uses technologies such as "betathanatine", a "tibbet knife", a manufactured "sleeve," and other devices to go take out bad guys. While each of these items are not extant today, the author goes to lengths to describe the functions of same. The sleeve has, for example, gecko skin cells about the hands. The tibbet knife is permeated with Marburg virus. Betathanatine is a designer drug which vastly reduces body metabolism. All of these individual elements are combined in a way as to provide Takeshi Kovacs with a significant advantage over the badguy. However, all of them are plausible (to some extent), all of them are explained and extrapolations of understood and defined science, and their interaction together is easy to understand. If somebody lacerates your arm and inserts Marburg into the wound, you're gonna have a pretty bad day.
Also of note, I was reading through the Amazon reviews for these books today, and at least one author there (not me, I originally wrote the deus ex machina text in this article) says the same thing. It's hardly a "source", but I don't think that claim exactly requires a source. This isn't required literature or anything. ... aa:talk 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Is every ending involving a machine deus ex machina?" No, the phrase refers to a plot resolution that appears from nowhere. See List of deus ex machina examples. -- Samwyse, aka 70.130.148.100 06:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

There's like, two paragraphs in the Technology Precepts section which don't have something indicating that they've been ripped off from somewhere. Someone should fix that - I'm sure someone must've done the Silfen before. :/

Ok, I've rewritten it all pretty extensively. It now goes into a great deal more depth, I feel, than it did previously. I'm not sure how the Primes fit in as a technological precept, so I've left them out for now. The Silfen and SI etc barely made it in as it is. Might want to move them into an entirely separate category if anyone gets the chance.

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section[edit]

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Pandora's Star]] is changed to [[Commonwealth Saga#Pandora's Star |Pandora's Star]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 16 June 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this page not neutral?[edit]

I have read this page many times, and i see not problem. please inform me of the promblem or your views as i think the template should be taken away. Also maybe some more work can be done on this page. like character description or more information on the commonwealth.

PS. In the story how do these silfen paths take you to other planets, even earth!. how is this possible?

"The Commonwealth Saga represents a subtle maturing in Hamilton's prose style and restricts his tendency to infodump in long streams of exposition, which occasionally surfaced in Night's Dawn. It also has a leisurely pace, drawing the Intersolar Commonwealth in impressive detail, rivalling if not exceeding the detail of the Confederation in Night's Dawn. Conversely, the characters are perhaps not as memorable, not helped by lots of them being extremely rich, politically influential people who have lived for centuries." - All of this is pretty much non-neutral POV and requires a bit of work to clean up. I'll look into it when I have some time. The Silfen Paths are probably a derivation of wormhole technology which are not limited by the quantum interference set up by the barrier; or possibly an SF plot device that doesn't bear up to close scrutiny ;-) --Werthead 00:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

featured[edit]

I think this article has a lot of potential to be a featured article and can be. Who's with me? Culverin? Talk 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been, but now, and thanks to this god-forsaken angry editor who thinks he's god, this article is worth nothing anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.92.7.68 (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Information[edit]

Due to some inaccurate information I've edited large parts of the document, below are the main changes and reasons why:

  • Background Precepts reverted to Technological Precepts due to the nature of the section referring to the technology in the novels rather than simply the background.
  • Edited the information on rejuvenation to give a more accurate description based on the information provided in the novels.
  • Changed some information on re-lifing due to inaccuracies.
  • Details on the cybersphere/unisphere connection amended as appropriate.
  • OC Tattoes seperated as they are a seperate form of technology.
  • Silfen information edited:
    • No information is given in the Commonwealth Saga to confirm the claims that they "use their highly developed mental abilities to travel on Paths", so removed incorrect information.
    • There is no explanation in the novels of how the paths are travelled, only a mention at the end that Ozzie and Orion are aware of the paths and where they may lead.
    • Removed the reference to no proof of humans travelling the paths (that's what happens in the novel..).
    • Also removed information about the Silfen blocking technology with their mental powers as this is never stated in the books. The reason for the technology not working is never fully explained.
  • Removed details about the sequel trilogy. Even though it is set in the same universe, it will not be part of the Commonwealth Saga.

chitman13 16:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the section about the void trilogy as it is important. Its in the same universe so why not mention it. We have more to gain from having then not having it. Culverin? Talk 11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the information to include Misspent Youth as this is also set in the same universe. chitman13 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Culverin? Talk 11:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the item that was a link to Peter Hamilton's personal page to a link to his page on the publisher Pan Macmillan's website. The link to Peter's website www[dot]peterfhamilton[dot]co[dot]uk was redirecting to a "you are lost" page on the Pan Macmillan's website.

Thank you MauricioRaul (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring[edit]

I have restructured the article to what I feel is a more logical order, but I cant seem to figure out how to add bulletpoints to the technology section, without having the whole article gaining them. Only same of the paragraphs need them. Also I feel that "Technological Precepts" could be better renamed, perhaps to "Technology used in the Commonwealth Saga" Cronium 11:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hancher[edit]

Shouldn't there be a Hancher mention in the Races section of the article? According to the timeline connecting with the Void trilogy Tochee is a Hancher. SouperAwesome 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing[edit]

I have copy edited as far as 'intersolar dynasties'. If anyone wants to check over my edits for factual accuracy/canon, please do so as I am not an expert on this universe. I'm about to start on 'Intersolar dynasties' although this part of the article looks like it shouldn't need too much work. --carelesshx talk 01:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Copy edited to 'barsoomians', resuming tomorrow. --carelesshx talk 02:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit complete, see diff --carelesshx talk 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korrok-Hi[edit]

The Korrok-hi are a large furry alien encountered by Ozzie Isaacs while stuck on the frozen Silfen world. They are roughly eight feet tall and covered with the fluffy fur with wide dark eyes visible at the top. It is not possible to see whether they have legs. They communicate by making a loud chant-like hooting noise. The Korrok-hi are very suited to the cold world on which they are located.

I have removed this section from the article as after copy-editing it ends up too short to warrant inclusion in the article. If these aliens play an important part in the narrative, please expand this section before putting it back in the article --carelesshx talk 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Races Info[edit]

Over the last couple of edits, the page has lost a lot of information on races in the Commonwealth universe. For example, searching for barsoomians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=barsoomians&go=Go) yields minimal results, with nothing relating to the race told about in this series. The page needs to be edited to include that information again, or another page needs to be made, but either way, editing a page and ending up with less information is surely not a goal of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.62.75 (talk) 01:47, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

With that I do agree, but we're on Wikipedia, and this this the risk with multiple editors who don't share the same opinion. 160.92.7.69 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put a version in place sometime over the next few days including some artist’s impressions by Marcello D'Atitlia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amckern (talk • contribs) 05:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tor didn't publish the US edition[edit]

This seems to be a common mistake for both The Commonwealth and Void books. Tor are listed as the US publishers on several websites for no reason that I can see. However, Del Rey are the actual publishers of the US edition. I've changed the infoboxes to the correct information and inserted page counts.--Werthead 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag and other problems[edit]

The OR tag for Technological Concepts is there because claims of notability or standing-out-edness need citations from third-party sources (likely reviewers) rather than fans' own interpretations. Examples include the Silfen being "most prominent" of the alien species", the Commonwealth Saga being "markedly" different from Hamilton's other works, train/wormhole travel being "considered similar to commuting" (considered by whom?), the SI's motivations being "unclear" (maybe reader John Smith thinks they're perfectly clear), hypothesizing that the SI's actions are "Perhaps due to its isolation." Additionally, in-universe generalizations like "people tend to shake off the responsibilities of their previous life" need to be cited to a particular character's dialog, or the phrasing changed from a generalization about the rejuvenation-undergoing populace to a statement about characters in the text. In general, this section really just seems like a bunch of plot regurgitation; this article is sorely lacking in any sort of reference to third-party reviews and commentary -- some of which more-interested editors can find at the AfD for the Dyson Aliens. --EEMIV (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the book ? Alex Pankratov (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing 10K about aliens[edit]

The material on aliens in the text is excessive plot summary -- padded with original research and speculation -- that doesn't meet the WP:WAF guidelines. I have removed it again. Please make a compelling argument for inclusion before restoring it. --EEMIV (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology concepts section[edit]

I'm removing this section. It's uncited and indiscriminate plot trivia, and it's more appropriate anyhow for the corresponding Fandom/wiki section. --EEMIV (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_Saga&oldid=1201071203"