Talk:Worm (web serial)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 January 2017 by reviewer Jcc (talk · contribs).

Novels Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

More Reviews[edit]

Need to be gone through, added as citations where applicable, any stuff in them that's not already mentioned in the article added.

--Muga Sofer (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Do list before resubmission[edit]

Anything else we think needs to be addressed? Plot section shortened, and hyperbole removed. We might want to do a bit more reference cleanup but it looks more or less okay to me at this point

-As mentioned below, the Powers section is perhaps not useful and the Synopsis needs to have less spoilers. Liberivore (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I stumbled across this accidentally and must say the quality of the article is still pretty poor. The main problems as I see it are: 1. Overuse of single sentence paragraphs. The text needs to be turned into some sort of narrative. 2. Overuse of primary sources, including those of the author itself. This makes a lot of it verge on WP:OR and include a lot of info that isn't only really of interest to fans. 3. In general the article still seems very fanish. There is a whole para about the redirects it gets from other articles, but somehow fails to mention the literary fact that the story is in 1st person. 4. In the same vein, the lede says the story subverts the tropes of the genre, but the main article doesn't expand on this or give any examples. Ashmoo (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-neither of the cites support the following sentence, unless I can't read well: "Worm is currently being edited, and McCrae plans to produce both an eBook version and a physical book via traditional publishing.[10][5]" 2601:1C0:4701:1D3F:566:1D5:B31D:1F4E (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Does anyone have any suggestions for which categories this should be in? "Comics" feels inappropriate to me, but I'm not sure.--MugaSofer (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A category for science fiction would probably be good. Jtrainor (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‎Sadads (on recomendation of a bot) put in the "novels" category according to the page history. Here are the categories it is in now: Novels first published online; Science fiction web series; Novels first published in serial form; 2010s science fiction novels; Superhero novels; Alternate history novels; Debut science fiction novels. I'm not sure whether it is really an Alternate history novel (Watchmen isn't included there for example) but the others seem fine. Liberivore (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

Plot, powers and synospsis sections are too long, hold too much irrelevant detail and are full of spoilers. I'd be in favour of axing the powers section completely and removing spoilers from the synopsis section. Liberivore (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all Wikipedia articles for books, movies, etc. that are complete have plot sections that describe the plot of the entirety and are chock full of spoilers. While I would be in favor of shortening the section, removing spoilers isn't the way to go.

Gbear605 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wordcount[edit]

Amongst the edits made to day, there have been two different changes to the word count that claim to be "exact". I have restored the old approximate wordcount that has a source. This is better than using hand-calculated wordcounts, since it will never depend on individual editors' definition of what a "word" is, or other such minutiae. Besides, a hyper-exact wordcount doesn't matter, it's the comparison that matters. I don't have any problem with a more exact wordcount that comes with a source for that wordcount, but please don't add your own original research calculations. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns[edit]

Is this really notable enough to merit a wikipedia article? It's pretty far off the mainstream radar, no matter how much of a shill piece the article is written as. If the article does stay, it probably needs significant rewrites to tone down that shilling element. 136.167.97.5 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources list, it clearly has significant coverage in reliable, independent, and notable sources, making it achieve Wikipedia’s notability criteria. That said, it does need cleaning up. Gbear605 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a bunch of randoms with blogs reviewing it counts as "significant" coverage, especially when on this very page the serial is marked as low-importance, which to me seems like it should be shorthand for "not notable enough for wikipedia." Certainly "notable enough" would require a major publishing deal or some sizable impact on culture or some such thing? I'm glad we agree on a rewrite though, because as it is the article reads like an ad. 2601:19B:B00:12FB:6555:8ADD:9B07:8E87 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Low importance" doesn't mean "not notable". Three million articles in en-WP are "low importance", and this is one of the better ones, given a C quality rating among the novels.

That said, I first found a mention to this series elsewhere, checked on this page (the really good cleanup done by Genericusername57 was already done), then proceeded to read the novels. I am thankful that the cleanup already happened, and I'd say it is sufficient enough to remove the quality tags for "overly detailed" and "plot". Which I now did. --Enyavar (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worm is sufficiently notable that it should keep its page on the project, it's had a major impact in the web serial community and is probably among the few to be at a point where it will inevitably face publication. EverettTheUrban (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot revisions[edit]

The former plot summary was disjointed and leaned a bit too much towards the Odyssey summary in WP:PLCUT. I tried to focus more on what the text itself focuses on, and to expand on characters' motivations, without bloating the word count too much. The synopsis remains a WIP (it still might be missing some important details and has some janky sentences). IgnominiousIbex (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, you're doing a fantastic job. Cheers, gnu 57 00:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is very concise, I give you that. However, the previous summary had, in my opinion, some preferable parts in only vaguely stating where the story would go without spoiling too much of the names and who kills who. Anyway, I would exchange the last word of the summary: Taylor's ultimate price to pay is not her sanity which she regains, but her powers. After all, there is a happy ending. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, the ending is intentionally ambiguous. Depending on which interpretation you take, the final epilogue scene is either as it appears, or a sort of shard-heaven where her shard (or possibly others) maintain a simulation of her consciousness for future use. The synopsis probably shouldn't take a stance, given that extensive discussion hasn't resolved the ambiguity. (Recently released chapters of Ward might, but that would be spoilers anyways.) In any event, powers is probably the best option, since it's true (at least to the extent we can tell) in both interpretations. Drako365 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a plot summary has to be short, but the current one completely misrepresents the main character. It seems from this summary that she just plainly turns to evil intentions, or maybe has Stockholm syndrome. However, when committing herself to the undersiders, it's important to mention that she does it because she sees the so-called heroes as caring more about their image than about actually helping people, and/or she thinks that she can help more people as a member of the undersiders as a member of the official heroes she sees as corrupt and inefficient. The whole point of her character, the central theme of the whole story, is the dilemma of having to do the wrong things for the right reasons. Every wrong she performs she does it because she believes it will lead to greater good. This topic would merit at least a short sentence in the plot summary, preferably at the part describing her abandoning the aspiration to become a hero. 213.181.200.251 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Parahumans" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parahumans. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Parahuman" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parahuman. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary changes by a banned user[edit]

Hi Ferret and Yamla. In the last few edits to this page, a banned user made a change and then it has been repeatedly reverted and restored. I agree that by default changes by a sockpuppet should be removed, but I think that in this case the changes seem to be fine and can be restored. Thoughts? Gbear605 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to reintroduce them and take responsibility for the accuracy of the changes, you are welcome to do so. Obviously, this isn't permitted for the banned user themselves, but you are a long-standing editor with no connection to that banned user. --Yamla (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 7 is a dead link.[edit]

As I said in the title. Citation #7 is a dead link. As of Aug 25th 2023 it leads to a domain registrar listing the website for sale. 174.166.234.174 (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, thanks for finding that! Gbear605 (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]