Talk:Gardens of the Moon

P.S.***From this review 1 importan aspect is missing that realy plays great deal in the series. Is the fight of Paran with the Hound (Big dogs of the Shadow realm - Shadothrone) and his wandering into the Dagnipur (the sword that is held by Rake).***

Yes, this is something that has been noted before. I'm planning to do a big update on all of the MBF pages at some point, but this is waiting for when I have more time, plus for whoever put up the notice about the summary to actually say what's wrong with it, since many other books have similar summaries and no major problems.--Werthead 23:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Added bit with the hounds. WLU 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed Ammanas = Kellanved

I have removed the parts saying that Kellanved is Ammanas and Dancer is Cotillion. This is a story spoiler for Deadhouse Gates. I feel that this article should only include story spoilers for this book, not the later books. SpectrumDT 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy violation

The article, as it stands now, is currently in violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, as it is mainly a plot summary. More information will be need to be added concerning real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, or it will continue to be in violation of policy. This is a major series; we should bring it into compliance.MPoint

Moss Piece

I won't try an edit, but feel I must point out something as very misleading in the article; perhaps someone with more knowledge of the series and the critical reaction to it can fix this up. When the article says

Additionally, Moss compares Garden of the Moon's complex plot to Joyce's Finnegan's Wake: "...I don't want to be unfair to him. Was James Joyce ever pressed for a detailed textual analysis of Finnegans Wake?"[3]

I don't think you can be any more misleading. Moss had been, basically, questioning Erikson's grammar, not referring to his plot, and the reference that follows to Joyce is rather sarcastic. Moss in no way compares the plot of Gardens of the Moon to Finnegan's Wake. I don't think I can stress this enough.rastronomicals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.147.5.172 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

High magic? What does it mean?

The disambiguation page that is (now?) behind "high magic" isn't of much use (to me), I wouldn't know which of those to associate with this book. Could this be clarified? Or perhaps the disambiguation page updated to indicate which would be used in fiction books?--Cyberman TM (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Background vs Development

@Sadads, While there isn't much difference between the two section titles and their placements, the Manual of Style for novels points to the usage of the former rather than the latter. I'd say that since there isn't much of a difference either way, we should go with the standards. Opinion? Ciridae (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my awareness, if its useful to understand the background/development before the plot, most FAs and GAs have it before (the MOS is not prescriptive in the order of sections). As for my preference for development -- at the moment, the article doesn't talk about any other background (say interpretation of the novel as part of an arch of different works within the author's life) it focuses on the works development in and of itself. There might be a moment where it reaches a broader coverage -- but at the moment, is it only focused on the development of the work itself. Sadads (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ciridae: Did this make sense?Sadads (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sadads: That's fine. Only the bare bones of the work's development has been reported (at least as far as I can find) so I doubt it's gonna be expanded further. I'll see what I can dig up. I mean to push this article up to B class. Any pointers? Ciridae (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ciridae: Your making great progress -- the obvious points of issue right now are the kindof narrow themes section, and the lead not fully summarizing the article. Frequently, when I am pushing towards B or GA class content, the easiest way to expand the themes (and to add discussion of genre and style -- both of which are brushed on in the reception section, but could use their own call out), is to read through the reviews in works like Salon and New York Times, for more of their discussion. The problem with Speculative fiction, is that most of the good discussion happens in blogs and zines, and its often hard to figure out which of those is Reliable in light of our policy (WP:RS), Sadads (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gardens of the Moon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201074405/http://worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html to http://worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Content

the Styles and Themes section contains a reference to some random reddit users post about the book. i'm pretty sure random reddit posts are not a valid source for a wikipedia article, so this should be removed. 2003:C5:C729:8452:DD70:20C:31A9:398A (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)