Jump to content

Talk:Skin Game (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Premature

[edit]

Rather unsurprising for a book that's unpublished, there are no third-party sources such as book reviews yet. Writing an article before such sorces exist is premature. Thus I have once again reverted back to the redirect. There's no need to have the article now; we can wait until we have good sources and can write some meaningful content, not just the opinions of the author and the publisher. Huon (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough information. I've created a page with references that give some details about the writing and the plot, and found a reference for a (tentative) release date, as well as a cover image. That seems to me to be enough to create the article. I may have been a bit too verbose about it, but that's a matter of opinion. If I find the time, I'll also incorporate all the external references (and any info therein) from the earlier edits over the holidays, to round things out. MjolnirPants (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's something I've learned, Mjolnir, is that this information will not be accepted until the publication of the book. Ngebendi (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Huon says, there are no third-party sources about this book yet. The primary issue here is notability, not publication date (though the two are pretty closely related in this case). Once sources independent of Jim Butcher start talking about and reviewing this book, it will then meet the criteria at WP:NBOOKS and an article can be created. Self-promotion does not warrant an encyclopedia article. For now, the list entry at The Dresden Files is sufficient. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could argue that it's popular enough to warrant a page per Wikipedia:NBOOKS#Not_yet_published_books, thanks to amazon.com and goodreads.com both having a page on it, and tvtropes.org and numerous blogs speculating about it, interviewing the author, reviewing chapters and so on and so forth. However, I don't really want to pick that fight. Especially when I consider the article's creation to be all but inevitable. MjolnirPants (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin Game (novel). If you want to now create the same article (i.e. before publication) the you should get a deletion review first.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over at WP:AN/I Georgewilliamherbert claimed that the notability guideline for upcoming books says this one is notable. I have to disagree. Quote from WP:NB: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." The author's website is not an independent souurce; neither is an interview with the author. Amazon is not reliable; in fact this isn't Amazon's first publication date. A couple of blog posts and forum posts is not an indication that the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. Huon (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher agrees with that date, and book publishing schedules are futmly fixed in stone this far ahead, with presses assigned and PR tours lined up. Regarding notability - have you reviewed sales and prominence in the Urban Fantasy field for the series? Notability is essentially assured, best seller list status, etc. It's not a crystal ball prediction that this will do as well as the last dozen or so bestsellers... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding general notability and crystal ball again, books 9-14 hit the NY Times top seller lists, and there's been a TV series made of the book series. This, if anything, qualifies. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
while eventually it it almost assuredly going to be notable; blog posts from the author, publication dates posted on Amazon and publication dates promised by the publisher are all elements of another highly anticipated fantasy novel that did not actuall make the first, second or even third date promised A_Dance_with_Dragons#Road_to_publication. We can wait. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again - a date five months away means editing is complete, layout is complete, press tours lined up, presses lined up, etc. a date a year or two ahead is speculative - five months is all lined up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand you correctly, are you saying any of the sources provided so far are reliable third-party sources, are you saying that reliable third-party sources are not required by the notability guideline, or that the book technically fails the guideline at the moment but we should have an article anyway? I disagree with all three options, but I can't tell which one I should argue against in greater detail. Huon (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the book notability guideline:
Not yet published books
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication.
  • Multiple independent sources (Amazon, Author, Publisher) note date and title.
  • This is book 15 in a series which was made into a TV show and where books 9-14 hit the NY Times bestseller top ten lists.
  • This is book 15 in a series which is widely critically held to have helped define Urban Fantasy.
This passes GNG. It passes the unpublished book guideline above. It also passes criteria five of the book notability criterion due to the series' prominence both critically and commercially. This is exactly the situation book articles for upcoming books are allowed at all under certain circumstances.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is "multiple INDEPENDENT sources". Amazon, the publisher and the author are all categorically NOT independent. If you have a CNN story about people camping out in line to be the first to pre-order, then that would count as one independent source covering the anticipation of the book-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Independent, not secondary. They are two primary sources (author, publisher) and one falling somewhere between primary and secondary.
You are conflating the question of source reliability with the one of book notability. The publisher is a priori reliable but primary source as to its own release schedule. While some unforseen thing could cause a schedule shift, we now have sufficient sources that the PLANNED release date five months from now should be established for purposes of discussion.
Regarding individual notability, series bestseller status establishes a rebuttable assumption that the next book will sell as well and make NY Times top ten lists, etc.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whah? "There should still be multiple independent sources " - The author is clearly not independent from the book he authored. The publisher is clearly not independent from the book it is publishing. And while you might argue that Amazon is "independent", as a primary merchant vector for sales of a book which stands to be one of its major revenue streams for a single item, calling it an independent reliable source puts your own credibility into question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again - RS on publication date as primary and close to primary sources. That's all we have to rely on from them.
They are not to be trusted as RS as to series notability. NY Times bestseller lists do that, with books 9-14 hitting the top ten lists. Cold Days * debuted* at #2 nationwide. That a priori suggests the next book in the series will be popular enough to be notable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be independent of each other and of the subject. Publisher and author clearly are not independent of the book. Amazon might be argued to be independent, but it's anything but reliable (I doubt author or publisher are, either). The claim that this passes WP:GNG without a reliable third-party source in sight is just plain wrong. Notability is not inherited. There is no such thing as a "rebuttable assumption of notability". Huon (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so... Regarding schedule, Do you not believe the primary source of the world's second largest publisher as to its own schedule?...
Having the NY Times ape the publishers' publication date would not improve its accuracy or reliability for our purposes. This is an interesting legalistic perversion of Wikipedia sourcing you're trying to set up.
Regarding notability, the whole series is notable both critically and commercially. It either will hit the bestseller lists and therefore be notable or will flop and therefore be notable as an author experiencing a momentous decline. The inheirited notability guideline is for children, not book series.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what? We already have an article on the series; it's at The Dresden Files. You oviously didn't read WP:INHERITED: "Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that." It's not just for persons. Also, no, I don't inherently trust publisher announcements, and The Red Pen of Doom provided a good example, unless you consider the second-largest publisher more reliable than the largest in that regard. Huon (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that they have set a date I will believe that it is released on that date when it is actually released on that date. And like any source writing about themselves we can "believe" content that is not self promotional. "LOOKY LOOKY WE ARE SELLING YOU THIS PRODUCT ON THIS DATE!!!!!" is, well, self promotional. And I cannot believe that we are needing to spell this out to such an experienced editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY

[edit]

Try these sources:

Those are just the unaffiliated sites. It took me all of five minutes to get those links, and that's certainly more than "A couple of blog posts and forum posts..." As far as interviews not establishing the notability: I can think of nothing that establishes notability better than multiple interviews with the author. Try to argue that interviews with George R. R. Martin aren't indicative of his notability as an author and you'd be laughed off the talk page. I'm sorry if I seem confrontational, but it's just the truth.
That being said, the article can certainly wait until the book is out. Even though I believe and can argue that the article is warranted, I don't see the need to edit war over it when it's creation is all but inevitable. Unless the book completely fails to sell, it's status as an entry in a NY Times best selling series pretty much guarantees that it's going to be a bestseller, itself. Anyone who thinks the entry can wait until it's published should simply say so (as TRPoD did), not sit here and argue that the book isn't notable enough to deserve an article, because frankly: That's a ridiculous claim. No offense intended. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you have a lot to learn about reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Number three, dresdenfiles wiki is a fan made wiki and not usable as a source for wikipedia. It also still needs a lot of work. Ngebendi (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, aintitcool interview defines wikipedia as a rumor mill. There ya go. Ngebendi (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't suggested that either aintitcool or the dresden files wiki are suitable as sources for the article. I included them in a long list of sources for the notability of the subject. There is an important distinction there. I want to reiterate that I'm not arguing that the article needs to be created now, only that claims that it lacks notability are spurious. MjolnirPants (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability via the WP:GNG is established via reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If a source is not suitable for the article, it does not help establish notability. Huon (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than continue the argument, I'm going to say this and be done: Whether you like the books or not (and you really seem not to), the article will get created eventually. That's my only real interest here, and no matter how much arguing you do, you're not going to change it. MjolnirPants (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see thats your problem - assuming that people are editing to pimp works they like and trash subjects they dont like rather than being here to produce a quality encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me what my problem is. That's the best way to make your point, after all: Attack the opposition. Especially after they walk away from the argument. MjolnirPants (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to start in again, but sometime today, amazon.com updated the release date to July 3rd. It's now the 4th date I've seen, and it's making the earlier reference to A Dance with Dragons more and more appropriate. This is why I'm content to let the article wait. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any update on Amazon, nor the publisher nor Butcher's page. Cite? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1] the UK page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Orbit UK edition, not the ROC US edition. They're different companies, different press runs, etc. They were trying to coordinate on the date, but the UK one (apparently) slipping doesn't say anything about the US edition. Why would you think they did? ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TRPoD, That's it. I could have sworn I was on the US version, but I wasn't. Mea culpa. Sorry about that, George. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

[edit]

Change

When Nicodemus Archleone shows up asking Queen Mab to pay off an old debt, she loans him her Winter Knight. Harry finds himself teaming up with the evil Nicodemus and a crew of nasties recruited for this job, and he's pretty sure that his employer has no intention of letting him survive this job.

To

When Nicodemus Archleone shows up asking Queen Mab to pay off an old debt, she loans him her Winter Knight. Harry finds himself teaming up with the evil Nicodemus and a crew of nasties recruited for this job, and he's pretty sure that his employer has no intention of letting him survive.

Better English, that's all. Simulated989 (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Acalycine(talk/contribs) 06:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't think the semi-protection is still necessary here. I've submitted an unprotection request to User:Ronhjones. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Points

[edit]

The plot points section exists in the following Dresden Files books:

  1. Cold Days
  2. Changes
  3. Turn Coat
  4. Small Favor
  5. White Night
  6. Proven Guilty
  7. Dead Beat
  8. Blood Rites
  9. Death Masks
  10. Summer Knight
  11. Grave Peril
  12. Fool Moon
  13. Storm Front

That's 13 out of 14 previous novels. I believe that's enough to establish a precedent. As far as usefulness, the nature of the series –in which each book is a stand alone story, which relies upon previous plot elements for either or both of its main plot and sub-plots- establishes a clear use for a point-by-point listing of plot developments in each novel. Finally, to address concerns of OR, I should point out that the plot points are all correct, verifiable in the novel itself, and do not require any synthesis of other material to arrive at (any required knowledge of previous plot points is summarized by the book). In short, they are not OR by any measure. If any problem should be addressed, it should be that Ghost Story lacks a plot point section.

On a related note, I've noticed that the overall formatting of the articles listed above varies quite a bit. I intend to correct that soon, by bringing the other articles into line with this one (I.E. Taking out the 'Introduced Characters' and 'Summary of changes' sections, adding an 'in other media' section to this article, etc.).

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if there are 13 out of 14 that have a "plot points" in addition to a plot summary/synopsis, that means that there are 13 other articles that also need to be cleaned up to avoid ridiculous redundancies. And if they only have a "plot points" section and NOT a summary or synopsis, then they need to be WP:PROSEified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to address anything else I said, or just stick to saying "it's redundant"? I've already given a rationale for keeping the section which addresses your point about redundancy. In addition, if you go through the articles about the books, you will see that the majority of plot points mentioned are not covered in the synopsis, a fact which makes your claim of redundancy mostly inaccurate. Also, please read WP:OR. Your claim that the plot point section constitutes OR is demonstrably wrong. Finally, please don't continue to edit war about this. Lets continue to discuss until we come to an agreement, not go back and forth until someone gives up. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


If you are willing to agree to it, I will restructure the "plot points" section of each article that has one into prosaic form and merge it into the synopsis section under it's own sub-section. My concern here is that the information contained in those sections is maintained in general, not that it be presented in any particular form. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See here for what I'm referring to, using this article as the example. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did address it - its completely inappropriate WP:OR -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The plot points are not OR by any measure. I challenge you to find any definition of OR which would encompass verifiable information. Please participate at the DRN, if you will not participate here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it is by any measure WP:OR to claim that something that happens in one book is reflective of something that happens in other books. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of each multiple-book-spanning plot point, they are described in the book in which they appear as spanning the timeframe of multiple books. I have already explained this above. I can cite specific passages if you refuse to check the books yourself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from MjolnirPants' talk page: 'Please read WP:PRIMARY: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Listing key plot points is analysis.' --NeilN talk to me 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That rationale makes all plot summaries OR, unless they describe every event in a work of fiction with the same weight, in which event they would be in violation of a number of precepts in MOS:FICTION. It is nonsensical and smacks of wikilawyering. In addition, the quote you provided does not support your assertion that identifying key plot points is OR, and last but not least: No plot points have been identified either explicitly or implicitly as being more important than any others. I have referred this discussion to DRN, as I do not find either a one-sided discussion or this strange attempt to let one person debate while the other edit-wars to be helpful. With luck, someone there will elicit some attempt at consensus building from TRPoD. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Family ties: Harry's relationship with his daughter Maggie appears to be growing" -> analysis. --NeilN talk to me 06:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not analysis. The character specifically describes a growing relationship in both narration and in-universe speech. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it is so analysis, you are pulling content from multiple sources to make a claim/association/connections/ANALYSIS that is not specifically stated in any of the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem...

The character specifically describes a growing relationship in both narration and in-universe speech.
— User:MjolnirPants 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not even reading my posts, are you? Or do you actually have a rationale for arguing that one passage in one book somehow constitutes "multiple sources"? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 15 books in the series, fourteen of which have a "Plot Points" section. Unless they're all removed, I'm in favor of keeping this section also on this page. Ngebendi (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

being consistently incompatible with policy is a not a position that has any value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and now the other articles have been cleansed of their inappropriate WP:OR so even the facile position that "we must be consistent" aligns with the policy based WP:OR position and we remove them from here as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nor has any value insisting on a certain point and being too lazy to follow up with the consequences. Ngebendi (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sure what you mean. But you cannot possibly mean that in order to apply policies to any particular article one must first bring all 4 million other articles into policy compliance? One has to start somewhere and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:OTHERCRAP-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean that with fourteen other "Dresden files" with a "Plot point" section, you either keep it or remove it in all of them. That's all. Ngebendi (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason why all the other books have such a section. I have explained the reason above. A major part of civil discourse on WP consists of reading what the other party says. Flatly ignoring it -as you have done- only serves to worsen content disputes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i am not flatly ignoring it. i am saying that it is blatantly against policy and you are flatly ignoring policy "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." when you need to compare across books, you are obviously "combining material from multiple sources" in a manner that is not acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations are wrong, and you are flatly ignoring things I've said.

...any required knowledge of previous plot points is summarized by the book...
— User:MjolnirPants 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In the case of each multiple-book-spanning plot point, they are described in the book in which they appear as spanning the timeframe of multiple books.
— User:MjolnirPants 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The character specifically describes a growing relationship in both narration and in-universe speech.
— User:MjolnirPants 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that a single passage from a single book constitutes "multiple sources". I'm waiting with breathless anticipation for this bit of logical origami. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me pretty obvious that a series of novels by the same author cannot constitute "multiple sources" except under very unusual circumstances. Deb (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but one doesn't even need to read more than one book in the series to garner an overview of the series-wide plot at that point. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
complete and utter nonsense - multiple sources is multiple sources and 12 distinct books are obviously 12 distinct sources. you attempting to claim that the book's contents be compared to the story line from the other books is obviously extending commentary from beyond what is explicitly stated in the source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you attempting to claim that the book's contents be compared to the story line from the other books
So you're going to insist I said the opposite of what I've repeated several times in order to continue an argument that's already been abandoned by the other side? It's time to drop the stick before you shoot yourself in the foot. You really need to work on learning to play well with others. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other books

[edit]

At Skin Game. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citations needed hatnote

[edit]

I understand that there are not a lot of references used in this article. However, the more I look at the wording of that hat note, the less applicable it seems to be. It states "This article needs additional citations for verification."

What, exactly in the article needs more citations for verification? The plot summary is fine as being sourced to the book, and doesn't need to be explicitly cited per the MOS (though it is, for good measure). What about the rest? Well looking at the factual claims in the article, I come up with the following...

  • Skin Game is a novel in The Dresden Files series by Jim Butcher. It is the 15th novel in the series.[1]
  • The book debuted at number 1 on the New York Times best seller list the week of June 6, 2014.[2]
  • In 2015, Skin Game received a nomination for the Hugo Award for Best Novel.[3]

If you check, you'll see that each of those claims is sourced to one of the four listed references. So again I ask, what exactly in the article needs more citations for verification? I just want to give it a few days to see if anyone has an answer before I whack the hat note. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Randy Cordova (June 6, 2014). "Author Jim Butcher embraces nerd following". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved June 21, 2014.
  2. ^ GREGORY COWLES (June 6, 2014). "Inside the List". New York Times. Retrieved June 21, 2014.
  3. ^ "2015 Hugo Awards". Retrieved 6 April 2015.
I always wondered about this page's tags - many of them seem superflous with respect to other comparable pages, and strangely motivated. I'd be in favor of removing the hatnote. MinorStoop (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three days and only one (supporting) comment later, it's done. Watch it get reverted in the next 15 minutes, lol MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skin_Game_(novel)&oldid=1262777451"