Talk:Ilium (novel)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
What the hell is a "scholic"?
[edit]For people unfamiliar with this novel (such as myself), plot summaries with unexplained terminology such as this are not quite as helpful as they could be.
Something or other
[edit]I like this writeup but I have to laugh at this line
- the notion of a technological singularity where humanity veers sharply off its traditional path
The line sounds good but I wasn't aware that humanity had a "traditional path". WpZurp 23:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Should Ilium article include information from Olympos sequel?
[edit]In my heavy editing, I included information, such as the warheads released by the Global Caliphate, that is found in Olympos. I tried to keep it to a minimum, but is it all right to have some information in there that is not found in the Ilium but is still relevant to the book?
I guess I feel squeamish about including it because I don't want to spoil the second book for anyone, but the information that I did include didn't reveal the ending of the second book or much about it at all, I think. I don't really know. :x I think it's all right the way it is, I guess.
Any other opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thesis4Eva (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
Plot summary
[edit]The plot summary is currently some 2,000 words in size, and has been marked as overlong since October. At the same time, the plot introduction seems to contain a quite adequate synopsis. I suggest that we remove the overlong plot summary altogether and rename the plot introduction as the plot summary. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Any objections, please revert and discuss. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- As someone who came to this page looking for what the heck happened in Ilium as I get ready to read Olympos, I was super disappointed by the lack of specific information, and found exactly what I was looking for in the history. Can we bring it back? I don't know how to put my name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.38.59 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in the same position as you last commenter. Really hate wikipedian's fetish for deleting stuff. We're in the future of hypertext documents here, couldn't we have a short summary for the main article and link the detailed one from it rather than have people rooting through history pages? 85.159.236.219 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Dan Simmons Ilium.jpg
[edit]
Image:Dan Simmons Ilium.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
#c-BetacommandBot-2008-02-13T20:53:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Dan_Simmons_Ilium.jpg){kind=link}