Talk:The Saga of Seven Suns

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

Comment[edit]

For such an enourmous universe, I believe this page should have sections remoed and pages created seperately but linked for certain elements. An example would be a seperate page for races, characters or individual books. User:Tom walker, 17:51 GMT 11 July 2006


I agree, but first we need to expand the main page Superstarwarsfan 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the page Saga of Seven Suns Species List please go there and help me expand it. Superstarwarsfan 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2[edit]

I think that the book presentation should rewritten. The reason is that they sound like book's backcover text. The style should be wikipedian but with one's own words.--Hannu 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, our job isnt to get people to buy a book but to comment on an already released book, also i think that spoiler warnings should be put up. BlazeOfGlory15 10:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's much worse than that -- these are the back-cover texts. At least the description of the first book is, I only have that one available to compare right now. Some Google searches suggest that the others are likewise taken wholesale from promotional sources. That's not just unencyclopedic, it's also a copyright violation. I'm going to do a massive prune-job on that text to hopefully avoid worse. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty amazing series to be sure.[edit]

Pretty amazing series to be sure, lot's of twists and turns. Pretty good explanations of technology, although the stardrive explanation, leaves a bit to be desired. Overall a very good series.--Onesys 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klikiss[edit]

{{spoiler}}

I edited slightly the opening line of the section on the Klikiss as it has now been revealed that they still exist. ~Ben~

Can someone put a spoiler warning on this page? I did not know the Klikkis still exist. (Tho I always wondered) Superstarwarsfan 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spoiler warning is up BlazeOfGlory15 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What age group is the series targeted at? I find it hard to belive that it's meant for anything mid-teens and above, as the whole thing seems rather serile and, well, childish to me. Billzilla (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Billzilla[reply]

Name[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called The Saga of Seven Suns? That's what the book is called.

Just check this: common naming convention

hm strange according to the publisher it will be out july 2007 http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=65&pid=578870 at least in the UK

Because of troubles with the US publisher the USA SoSS6 was delayed to December but the UK one is still in July. Can't remember where I read that, either a Star Wars forum or KJA's website.

Never mind naming convention, the title of the book series as written on the front and sides of all of them is the saga of seven suns - therefore that is what the article really should be called, as per The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Tom walker 08:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree totally, go ahead and change it, but make sure that all articles that connect to saga of the seven suns get redirected to the saga of the seven suns. BlazeOfGlory15 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book Releases[edit]

I guess the last 2 books are delayed by a couple of months when I checked the website.

Book 6: Metal Swarm

The alien hydrogues have been defeated, driven back into the cores of their gas-giant planets by an alliance of the Earth Defence Forces, the ancient Ildiran Empire, the gypsy-like Roamer clans and fantasic water elemental beings as well as gigantic living 'treeships'. But as the various factions try to pick up the pieces and recover, the deep-seated wounds may be fatal.

Due out in December 2007

Ships[edit]

I think that maybe there should be a page dedicated to the ships of each race in the book eg: Warliners, Juggernauts, Mantas, Sky Mines etc. The names of the most of the ships can be mentioned with who owns them. It could discuss weapons and technology of the ships with each race who created them. I could Help.--Grid Admiral 11:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have been adding a few bits to the ships page, i also created a stand alone technology page, (linked at the bottom of the main saga7 page), which includes detailes on compies klikiss bots, weapons, the stardrive and transportals. --AvatarIII 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AvatarIII looks good, i have also added to the technology page, i also change some page names to fit with the catagory. --Grid Admiral 07:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grid Admiral (talk • contribs).

Cover images[edit]

What edition are those images from? They don't look like any of the editions I've ever seen here in the US which have small images (that don't match those shown here) on a mostly monochromatic background with different formatting for the text.

Those are the UK covers. Might be an idea to put the US ones next to them. Tom walker 18:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can get the US Covers at [1] with the exception of metal swarm which will be release along with a new set of covers which can be viewed at kevins myspace page in the images section [2]--AvatarIII 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

where are all the source sitations? shouldnt there be a warning that this article does not cite its sources well? BlazeOfGlory15 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the sources are the books themselves --AvatarIII 13:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Pages for all the books[edit]

arent there usually individual pages for all the books in a series? examples include harry potter, diskworld, and wheel of time. BlazeOfGlory15 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personally i dont think this series needs individual pages for each book, especially since there are spin off pages like tech and planets and species etc. --AvatarIII 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no i agree the book should have separate pages, how about a vote or something? if not ill just do it and you can all complane. Grid Admiral 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grid Admiral (talk • contribs)
Go on then, if you really want to, do it, i just dont think each page will be particulalrly long. --AvatarIII 14:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how "important" are these books to the genre at present and from a historical point of view? Do they enjoy anything near the popularity or notoriety of the Harry Potter books? Have anything like the intrinsic, lasting value of the diskworld ones, etc? Shouldn't relevance and notability be the real factors in whether each book deserves its own page here? (I'm no KJA fan and have only skimmed a small bit of the first book, but from what I can determine these books are fairly derivative and, typically, poorly written. IMO one page on the whole series is more than enough.) --SandChigger 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok i guess your right, i guess someone should just delete every page, and all that work. I feel every saga, especially this one that has potential to become a great work over time, so not many people have heard of it or read books at all, for the minority that do this is a great work, science fiction is dying out with all this fantacy crap in the world, with sci-fi we deal with problems with technology not magic or some other crap. And i guess i don't really have the time to place each book on its separate page but when i do i will. Grid Admiral 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings[edit]

spoiler warnings need to be put up imediately BlazeOfGlory15 10:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put up the spoiler warnings BlazeOfGlory15 10:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pic at the top[edit]

I think that the picture at the top of the articlesould not just show the first book but all of them so far. somewone needs to photoshop them together and upload the pic. BlazeofGlory 02:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

I think the timeline should be expanded so that it isn't taken straight out of the book Superstarwarsfan 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


- It does have some extra information, but what canonical source is there other than the books? And what else would you want included? --AvatarIII 14:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better timeline on KJA's Wordfire website? In its current form, the timeline here is about as interesting (and relevant) as a selection from one of the "begat" chapters in Genesis. If there's nothing better available, it should probably be deleted. (Expanding it from the books on your own would no doubt constitute Original Research.) --SandChigger 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory text (for Book 7)[edit]

Has anyone read the introduction at the top of the page lately? It's pretty bad. Examples:

The series is set with a space opera theme...
Is "set with a...theme"?
...in the Spiral Arm of the Milky Way galaxy.
Um, there are more than one. Hello?
every corner of humanity
Would work if everyone looked like Picasso painted people.
with little to no goals in their existence
Huh?
the status quo is interrupted.
Punctuated equilibrium?
mans folly
Genitive apostrophe, anyone?
gas giant planet
Not to be confused with just a gas giant? (I'm seeing a burpy Jolly Green Giant after too many beans.) A gas giant star? Gas giant moon? (Whoa, Jolly Green, Dude, pull them back up!)
...and...and...and....
Aiyaiyai.
with Humans and their Ildiran benefactors caught in the cross hairs
Which is better than being caught by the short hairs, I guess.

Really, who wrote this? (I can't be bothered to go back through the page history to find the guilty party.) There's no excuse for bad writing here, even given the topic of the article. I'm just watching this page and don't want to butt in, but if someone doesn't rewrite the intro, I'll take a stab at it in a few days. --SandChigger 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


i'm not as lazy as you obviously :P, it was some IP adress guy [3] i think this may be a job for "grid admiral" because i'm not the best at writing clearly and consisely, feel free to take a stab, if you think you can write it better, that's the whole point of wikipedia right? --AvatarIII 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign there at first, huh? ;)
I'm pretty sure I can't do worse. --SandChigger 10:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There, done. Not great, but surely better, no?
I have read only a bit of Hidden Empire. I assume that the repeated references to "the Spiral Arm" mean our local Orion Arm and changed the text accordingly. (The reference in the Hidden Empire synopsis should also be changed if I'm right about this.)
If there are not going to be separate pages on each book, there should be a BALANCED section concerning critical reception of the series. (Something mentioning the obvious borrowings from Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos would be especially nice.) --SandChigger 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text for this book again. It is copied almost verbatim from this page on KJA's Wordfire site: http://www.wordfire.com/seven.html NOTE the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. --SandChigger (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandChigger and Biased Edits[edit]

I'd like to take a moment to talk about SandChigger and some of his edits. They are selective, and always bent against KJA. Now, I am an admitted fan of KJA and his writing, so I'm probably about as unbiased as SandChigger.

However. While I strive to keep some balance in the articles, his edits are solely selective. The Critical Reception section of the page mentions both positive and negative reviews, but quoted and discussed only the negative. I found a quote of a positive review of about the same length and added it to the section.

SandChigger then deleted it, saying it was a review only of the first book, Hidden Empire and not the entire series. He left, however, the negative article - which itself was a review only of a single book. This seems purely selective to me.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive my ignorance - is there a way to somehow protect these articles?El Gonz (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a quick look through-out this Talk page, I think you'll get a quick glimpse of what I mean. El Gonz (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I wouldn't argue too much with what SandChigger has written, KJA writes some of the worst rubbish I've unfortunately come across. :( Billzilla (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that is, of course, your right. And as there does seem to be a noteworthy group that does not like KJA or his writings, the multiple Best Sellers are enough to a large group also enjoy his writings.
My issue is that these things seem to be repeatedly underplayed in these articles, and will often quote from negative reviews and articles but never positive ones, mentioning only in passing that there have been positive reviews as well.
It is this and the fact that many of SandChigger's edits seem to be solely one sided and biased - for instance, removing a positive review from the Saga of Seven Suns page while leaving a negative review in place, even though the exact same reason for removing the positive review can be stated of the negative one.
What happened may have been a mistake and I don't expect perfection of anyone and of course things will be missed and mistakes will be made. However, KJA's pages have been repeatedly the subject of vandalism (though bots often catch this) and I believe there is a clear pattern evident in the posts and edits of SandChigger.
In an attempt to edit this comment for clarity, I added "What happened may have been a mistake and" to the beginning of the paragraph above. I hope this won't be a problem, but wanted to be clear and above board about it. I will also update the time stamp on my signature at the bottom. There are no other edits or changes after this paragraph.
Ultimately, I don't think it's about agreeing or disagreeing, but maintaining Wikipedia's neutrality and integrity. Biased edits which serve to promote an agenda are probably not a good idea. Even more dangerous to Wikipedia is inconsistency in the standards of what makes the cut and what doesn't.
Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It is easy enough, particularly with Wikia.com, to make custom or private Wiki sites which can address concerns such as this.
While editing my comment before posting, I accidentally cut off the end of my statement. To fix this, I have added "can address concerns such as this" to the end of the paragraph directly preceding this one.

El Gonz (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My, my, what a LOT of excitement and verbiage, all wasted over lil ole me? Why, if I was really some sorta attention seeker, this woulda just plum put me in seventh (sun?) heaven! So sorry I missed the excitement, Gonz. --SandChigger (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I attributed that to your absence, which apparently ended a few days ago. If I was mistaken in my perception or description, than I am sure others will see that. Because we are both biased, that is why I asked unassociated individuals to weigh in and help keep things neutral.
It is good to have you back here on Wikipedia, though. Despite my belief that some are your edits are biased, you make many good and helpful edits and contributions.
On a final note, I hope neither of us will get bogged down in a "I don't like some of your views" dispute. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions here on Wikipedia. --El Gonz (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

I've obviously been trying to improve this article lately, and have begun adding reviews. Besides those that were already cited, the easiest to find were Publisher's Weekly, and most of those have been positive. I do want to accurately reflect critical perception though, so if anyone comes across any reliable sources with either positive or negative comments about the individual books or the series, please provide links here and I will incorporate them into the article. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Saga of Seven Suns. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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. — TAnthonyTalk 18:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Saga_of_Seven_Suns&oldid=1204067464"