Talk:Silo (series)

Untitled

I think the article as it is comes across as a bit like a promotion. There are some serious edits and expansions needed to accurately represent the series.Dubk (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the mystery of the silo has been revealed, it needs to be revealed here. notable plot points are not withheld, thats the job of the publisher. we dont avoid spoilers.75.61.135.189 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

English usage

"In 2012 Howey began shopping around the international rights to the series, with rights to the series being sold in Brazil".

What meaning is intended by use of the phrase, "shopping around"?

Normal English usage would suggest visiting a number of suppliers in order to find the best price at which to purchase an item, however that is clearly not the meaning intended here as Howey is not trying to buy Wool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.202 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "shopping around" with respect to a book, play or screenplay is a common term meaning to present it to multiple outlets in an attempt to find a buyer (in the case of a movie adaptation) or a publisher (for a book). This is a very common expression for this practuce. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Interviews

I've removed the interviews at "isaachooke.com" and "successilism.com", as neither are places that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Bluntly put, if something isn't seen as a reliable enough source to use as something to show notability, it shouldn't be added to an article. Some articles do include links to interviews in the EL section, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily should be included. Many times those only exist on Wikipedia because they haven't been caught and removed yet. Only time something should be included is if it's by a reliable source. An interview with the New York Times? Add it. An interview with Publishers Weekly or SF CrowsNest? Add it. But an interview with two blog-type sites that aren't really considered to be reliable sources? No. Not something that should be added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone's curious about the links, here are the two removed: Isaac Hooke interview, Successilism interview Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fanfiction

I've removed the Fanfiction section. It was extremely poorly sourced and was written from a very non-neutral voice. Do not readd the section without thoroughly discussing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reads like advertisement

"Book 9+ ... Now available for preorder on Amazon.com, it will be released as a single volume on August 17, 2013.[11]" Should the bit about pre-ordering it be removed? Opinions? SybilleY (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That edit was removed just after you posted this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure about it ;-) SybilleY (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Would also be nice if this article mentioned what those "big secrets" behind the Silos and the setting actually were. :) 174.3.224.60 (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Available as one book?

The introduction states that Silo is "also available as a single novel", but I do not see any evidence of that online, nor does the citation say so. The first two books in the trilogy were originally published as novellas before being compiled into omnibus collections. The third book was originally published as a novel. I propose changing the introduction to:

"Silo is a series of science fiction books by American writer Hugh Howey. The series started in 2011 with the short story "Wool", which was later published together with four sequel novellas as a novel with the same name. Along with Wool, the series consists of Shift, Dust, three short stories and Wool: The Graphic Novel."

At some point, we should also add a note about Wool's success with an ebook model and a description of the series. Dsethlewis (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely needs expansion

The plot synopses are way too short and need to be expanded. For example it mentions how the sheriff is investigating the death of his wife. This neglects to mention he was there when it happened, she wanted out of the silo (which essentially is a death sentence) and that he, in effect, had to serve as her executioner. Then over three years he commiserating her death until he cannot stand it and ants to join her. It also neglects to mention thus going outside has the euphemism "cleaning," because the condemned are sent out in a pressure suit to clean the silo's external sensors, and how Holston does so, then falls down next to his wife's rotting corpse, betrayed by a fake visual display whuch shows the outside as green grass and blue sky, causing him to open his suit, where the barren wasteland, full of toxins, destroys him.

And so on. Something like this is how the synopsis should be written. Since probably nobody wants to do it it looks like I'll have to as I get time. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the synopsis of Part I to do a reasonable summary of Holston's story and his death, borrowing from what I wrote above, and leaving a few pieces from the old (original) summary to explain.

I also summarized part of Part Ii where I explain Deputy Marnes not wanting his boss' job and gives Mayor Jahns his choice for Holston's replacement, maintenance technician Juliette, and they go to see her (I need to update the summary to add that their visit is to offer her the job.)

At this point I've stopped because I'm surprised to find I'm a bit tired and a little hazy on the details that follow and need more time to summarize the next segment. But I think it's a good start. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Fwiw, no, you don't do direct replies in entirely new sections. — LlywelynII 23:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Part 2 completed

A complete summary of part 2 is finished. Some minor errors were corrected and the summary goes all the way to the end. Since parts 1 and 2 have complete summaries, I'm removing the top of page warning that it needs more details.. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course this is absolutely the wrong dab

and needs to be moved to some version of Silo (book series) asap. — LlywelynII 23:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait... what?

Thurman reveals that CAD-FAC was a cover for World Order Operation Fifty (W.O.O.L.)...

No, that's not how abbreviations have worked since the the 18th century. If that L is a random use of the Roman numeral L for 50, it's a number and not a punctuated abbreviation (W.O.O.L) in any dialect where people don't regularly write that their 8th. grade classroom had 30. 13.-year-old students. If the author did it anyway, his screwup doesn't change anything about how we present it any more than we're forced to talk about TESLA, BURGER KING, and VISA in all caps at all times because that's what their marketing department forces their editors to use as a house style.

Yes, the convenient thing to realize is that you're already using "CAD-FAC" instead of "C.A.D.-F.A.C." so of course the next abbreviation should be written the same way as "WOOL". If you strongly feel that paranoid dystopian survivalist fiction is so closely associated with American culture that the article needs to use American English throughout, you really don't need to use those periods in American English either but we would need to be consistent throughout.

We should also probably have a note in parentheses or using {{efn}} and {{noteslist}} to explain where that L came from just for clarity as well. — LlywelynII 02:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)