Talk:Alex Delaware

Novels: Crime Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Crime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

As one of the people working on adding information on this page, I am filling out information as I read these books so it is slow in coming and I encourage any and everybody to edit and add to what I have written. Also, my formatting is less than stellar, so if somebody wanted to put together a timeline, I would be more than willing to help. 74.133.192.177 04:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)dr[reply]

Copy Edit[edit]

This article is on the backlog list of articles to be copy-edited. I'm slowly rewriting the article so it reflects "real world" as per policies in "writing about fiction." Please see WP:WAF. Also, as per WP:WAF the fictional character Delaware shouldn't be referred to as Alex to avoid familiarity. I've posted references at the bottom of the article that will help. Will post the copy-edit banner when I'm working on the article. Don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:PLOT the summaries should be short, concise, given a real world context and include critical analyses.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done some copy-editing: changed the name to Delaware and shortened most summaries. I didn't touch the copy-and-paste summaries, though.--Kojozone (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping! I'd decided against changing Alex to Delaware until the article is finished, and then performing a mass search/change, but like you I find myself changing as I go along. What do you think of these summaries. Keep or rewrite? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are copyright problems concerning those summaries, so better re-write them.--Kojozone (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the copied summaries should be rewritten, but I'm tempted to rewrite the entire article without 23 summaries. What do you think? I don't mind doing an entire rewrite, am familiar with the author and have read all the books, but need another opinion. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if you want to spend that time - why not?^^ But what instead of the summaries? I haven't read a single Delaware book so I really have no idea. You could focus on the post-modern detectiv, although I have no clue what that would involve. If you want to do that, keep the summaries and expand the post-modern section. Or you could reduce the summaries by connecting several books with the same continuing story-line (the girlfriends, the friend, his personal history). As a result you would have less summaries, but had them more meaningful. However, if you don't want to change anything I'd find that acceptable too because the summaries are short and that's probably what you would go for if you want information on the topic. The cross-linking is a good thought, though. --Kojozone (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about changing the article so it looks like this, keeping the summaries for the meantime to work from, and then collapsing them altogether. I like the idea of expanding on the post-modern detective from an interesting paper I found, and then adding examples from specific books as supporting evidence. Certainly the article is in better shape than a few days ago when I started, but I can't find references for each of the 23 summaries, one reason I began to consider eliminating them altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other detective page is great, if you want to change it like that it would be terrific. Good luck ;)--Kojozone (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done copy editing, and then I'll take it off the 2007 list. Once done, I'll consider reworking into a different page which will solve the problem of the uncited summaries and make the article a better article. Thanks for the input. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more on this? It needs some work...I look forward to reading what you've done. Sabiona (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me here! The lead needs a rewrite; some of the long quotations should be paraphrased; the infobox isn't complete; and the formatting still needs some tweaking. Am very busy at the moment, but will get to this as soon as I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Delaware. 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: 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) 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]