Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22b240a4ad9258a

Jump to content

Talk:Shadow and Bone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Mika1h in topic Ruin and Rising

Plot summary

[edit]

The plot summary is terrible for someone who's never read the books to comprehend. You don't define any of the terms used. It's very amateurish.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.240.42 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Duology/dilogy

[edit]

@Огненный ангел: I see that you have changed "duology" to "dilogy" across six different articles. I was going to simply revert these changes, but I wanted to provide a longer rationale than would fit in an edit summary. Regardless of what you believe the "correct" word is etymologically, the word used in these articles should be the one that is most commonly used in reliable sources. I have never seen the Six of Crows (or King of Scars) books called a "dilogy." Sources consistently refer to them as a "duology" (, , , etc), and therefore that is the word that should be used in these articles. (See also: WP:Advocacy.) Aerin17 (tc) 18:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

We can agree that some of the Grishaverse novels are marketed as duologies and mention this fact in the article(s), but using this word elsewhere would be too much, in my opinion. Огненный ангел (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not that they are marketed as duologies. It's that every source that talks about these books agrees that they are duologies. You disagree on what word people should be using, and that's fine, but Wikipedia's job is just to summarize what sources say.
Like, a friend of mine believes that the plural of moose ought to be meese, and she has a point, but that doesn't mean that she can go in and change it on every Wikipedia article about moose. Aerin17 (tc) 00:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ruin and Rising

[edit]

Now that the second book has its own article, I checked and the third book seems notable as well: reviews by Kirkus and Amazon lists reviews by School Library Journal, Booklist, and The Horn Book. The official site says the book was on the New York Times and USA Today's bestseller lists. Mika1h (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply