Talk:CHERUB

ATTENTION: I recently improved and rearranged the CHERUB article. However I accidently deleted the CHERUB image and the content needs to be rearranged appropiately. Could someone please do this for me? As I don't know how to do it. Hope you like it - 86.8.24.139 08:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is by far the best book I've read in a long time! CHERUB FORUMS IS COMMITTED TO KEEPING THIS ARTICLE UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST NEWS! --Kingjohno 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the tone tag: Because the article is very good! --172.180.214.130 11:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (=Pete, Cherubforums)

It's not written in the formal tone of an encyclopedia article, though. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think most of it is in the right tone. just some parts arent... And what do you expect from us? We aren't Professionals, just a large community - mostly kids - who are Fans of this Book series...

Not all contributors to this article are fans, and the rules for Wikipedia say that the article should be from a neautral point of view - thus the reason it is not a pro-CHERUB or anti-CHERUB article. It should also be in the right tone, i.e. using proper words and not slang. It is not in the right tone for a Wikipedia, and I can assure you not all contributors here are from the CHERUB forums! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

With community I didn't mean the CHERUB forums, I ment anybody who edited the article to improve it... However, people who don't like the books just wouldn't write the article... And if you don't like the way its written, why don't YOU improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.178.74.139 (talk • contribs)

People who don't neccessarily like the books would edit the article, to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. And I don't neccessarily have the time to improve it, which is why I added the tag, however I may have a go at it sometime today. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just read this article through (I'm a part-timer on CHERUB forums). Noticed one typo, and the tone seems pretty neutral to me. 217.45.213.33 14:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about tone, but the article isn't exactly great anyway--Andy mci 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go through in a couple of minutes and try and re-write some of the article in a more formal tone. I think lots of the passages towards the end are copied straight out of the book... 86.154.74.1 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the second half of the article in a more suitable tone, but as a Wikipedia newbie I'm not totally sure whether it justifies the removal of the relevant template yet. Can someone have a look at it for me, please? 86.154.74.1 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of characters

Would it be worth it to make an article 'List of characters in CHERUB'?--Andy mci 08:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup --121.45.37.138 06:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don'y think CHERUB exists. Whats a fictional I.S.? |||| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.87.145 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters in CHERUB at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in CHERUB (8 October 2007 – 14 October 2007) Merge→CHERUB

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article, and the articles about single books, do not cite their sources. An assertion such as "Since the books have come out they have been a huge success selling over 750,000 copies worldwide" needs to be supported by some independent source, such as a newspaper article, not just having heard about it or read it in the blurbs of the books themselves. In general, it is not clear whether the series and the single book are actually notable: please, whoever is interested in CHERUB, read carefull the guidelines about notability and about the verifiability of anything that is written in an article. If no improvement are made (citing independent reviews, supporting the notability of these books), I shall consider proposing for deletion the articles about these books. Happy editing, Goochelaar 14:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A few problems

- It claims "James is still Dana's girlfriend" under Dana Smith's character. He is not. - The character list is very incomplete, as staff need to be listed. It even claims to have staff members at the top of the character section. - Nothing is said about what CHERUB does. It does not explain about cherubs going on missions or mission briefings or anything like that. Pn57 10:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pn57. I'm afraid I personally can't help with those problems because I haven't read the books. You've improved the article a lot today; would you be interested in adding the missing information? Bláthnaid 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

I find that the 6th link at the bottom of the Wiki page has very litle relevance to Cherub or Robert Muchamore. Yes, Muchamore is mentioned in one sentence, but the rest of the article is about some baby book. Maybe this should be removed? Julian W, Cherub forums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.172.201 (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm embarking upon a complete rewrite of the article, to avoid doing coursework because I feel it needs it. Got down to the end of Kyle's profile so far, I'll carry on when I get the time. Amzi (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

America

how come 10 Cherub books are out in Europe, but Man vs Beast Just came out in America. Why is there a delay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.121.119 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's something to do with getting them published with a different company, or something. And I have a feeling the US publishing deal's been lost, so you're relying on imports from across the pond now. Amzi (Talk To Me) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Americans don't like books as much as Britian, Australia, and the rest of the world, because you guys like too many violent video games. It's not insult, it's proven fact. And since they don't sell well over there, you won't get them anymore sadly. -Toajoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.204.223 (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

does anyone know what the name stands for, i always thought it was Charles Henderson's Elite Recon Unit for Boys (because it may have been just for boys then) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hduderocks (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Going with the fact that it was for boys, i thought it stood for Charles Henderson's Espionage Regiment for Boys BasilRazi (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Film

Someone added that Cameron Mitchell will star in the CHERUB movie, i can't find that anywhere.BasilRazi (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

They're not going to get a yank to star in a British film. -Toajoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.204.223 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The CHERUB Acronym

I've tidied up the section on the CHERUB acronym. The tone sounded like it was trying too hard to use "proper" language and the various guesses were irrelevant, since the name has not yet been revealed. I've added {{fact}} tags in various places where they are needed (I'm sure these can be found on the forums). I've also removed areas where facts were repeated.

ggt500 17:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone has deleted this section, Why did someone delete this section. I Will post a small paragraph about the acronym someone may want to edit it. §BasilRazi (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)§

I (formerly ggt500) removed it for reasons which seemed fairly obvious to me:

1. It's unencyclopaedic.
2. It's overbloated - two paragraphs to just say "We don't know what it is"?
3. It doesn't further the reader's knowledge in a useful way.
4. It's entirely speculative.

If we wanted to, we could create two paragraphs on this, several on the structure of CHERUB, several more on the Campus. But it would be a mess and completely useless. It's unnecessary.

What I propose to do is - once again - remove this completely useless section. I then will put a note in the introduction paragraph that the name is an acronym but what it stands for has not been revealed. Does that satisfy? Greggers ^{(t • c)} 08:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep that is fine, i think that might be better °§BasilRazi (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)§°

Split

I've suggested that this article be split into CHERUB (book series) (which keeps CHERUB) and CHERUB (organisation) since they are two different entities (though the organisation stems from the books) and this would make it easier to construct other articles. CHERUB (organisation) could contain the current "CHERUB Campus" and "T-shirts" sections as well as other information - there is an abundance of details that could potentially be added though I'd intend to keep it low-key.

My main worry, however, is that the organisation is not real. It's part of a story. I don't know how that would go down as an article. It would have to be clearly written that the organisation doesn't exist and was the creation of Robert Muchamore. On a similar note, there simply couldn't be a paragraph about speculation as to whether CHERUB really exists, because it's entirely unsupported by any evidence. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

Looking at the external links section, I don't like the foreign links being there. It makes the section look cluttered and they really aren't necessary. Those links can be found by searching in google or going to foreign language wikipedia and I don't think it's our job at en to accommodate links for them. It's okay-ish at the moment but it's going to be real easy for fans to start putting a copious amount of pointless links up that are irrelevant to the series. And then we have a linkfarm and it's a mess. And I hate linkfarms. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 11:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)