General wiki layout Edit
Big picture question: How should we be documenting these references? For that matter, how should we be documenting anything & everything in the Wiki?
A modest proposal... For simple items (like the definition of 'peregrin dialog', for example) it's easy enough to peg a page number from the hardcover or online PDF edition of the book. We probably should start doing that with proper wiki-style footnotes.
On the summary "List of Suspected References", we can list what we 'think' or suspect the reference to be. But on each of the actual subject pages ('Protas'), we need both footnotes and some discussion/speculation within the page itself (template time). Saunt Cartas, for example, seems to equate not only to Rene Descartes, but also somewhat to Hypatia of the Library of Alexandria.
Anathem, after all, is not a direct parable; there won't be clean mappings between Anathem and our History (no one-to-one and inversible transfer functions like a Laplace or Fourier Transform).
Thoughts? FrancoFile 15:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that ultimately the link in suspected references should point to a section on the wiki page that discusses in more detail the reference and citations. As an example, please see my edit to the Diax's Rake entry of LoSR and the link to the page reference.
Also as a point of order (I mentioned it on the entry for Erasmus, but I think it bears mentioning here), For characters in the novel that are Avout, we should refer to them by their honorific (Fraa or Suur) instead of just their name, since they tend to be named after a Saunt that plays a part in the story as well. This way we can avoid confusion of Fraa Erasmus and Saunt Erasmus, etc.
Astrobleme 16:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding a list of references:
I created the List_of_Suspected_References mostly as a dumping ground for ideas. When I was setting up the wiki I wanted a place just to throw out an outline to get people's interest. I'm not sure there is actually a need for this page, long term. Also, as FrancoFile mentioned, there is not a 1 to 1 ratio, so a table isn't a great solution. I think documenting references in individual pages is the better solution long term. Basically, there should be better ways to do it.
I've been thinking about using categories to organize data and tag pages. For instance, we could have Category:ExplicitReferences for where Stephenson states X=Y, which is done a occasionally, then Category:DocumentedReferences, for connections that are documented with quotes or page references, and then Category:SuspectedReferences for references that are poorly defined. I'd also suggest tagging all the pages with any of the above 3 tags with Category:AllReferences, just to have it create a big list of everything for me.
Regarding documenting specific references:
I think any specific reference, or even topic on this wiki, should have the following sections 1) A descriptive section (Example - Gardan's Steelyard: The idea that blah blah blah) 2.) A reference section (Example - References: This is clearly a references to Occam's Razon which states X, notable differences are Y.)
Regarding the naming of pages and references to characters:
I'm torn on this. The use of honorifics breaks the alphabetical sorting of content in categories, etc, which is a little user unfriendly. The real world doesn't provide a good solution either. On wikipedia 'Sir', 'Brother', and 'Sister' are not used, but 'Saint' is. If we use that example for 'Fraa', 'Suur', and 'Saunt' we still have a broken sorting problem.
I'm right now I'm leaning towards using 'Eramas' for Fraa Eramas and 'Eramas_(Saunt)' for page names, and suggest we just put disambiguation notes at the top of the pages. Any actual link to those pages could be displayed as [[Eramas | Fraa Eramas]] or [[Eramas_(Saunt) | Saunt Eramas]]. It's more work updating the pages, but allows for more accessibility to the pages in automated listings.
Let me know if these are horrible ideas. =)
Tomben 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Syntax Edit
Footnotes: I have not been able to find the proper markup for a proper Wikipedia style of references (for example at the bottom of Wikipedia article on NS. I faked it in an article on the Teglon, which will baffle no one. The combination of the 'ref' and 'reflist' tags (in the proper brackets, etc.) doesn't seem to work. Or I should say I can't get it to work which could easily be because I am missing some magic character.
I'm torn on the idea of adding footnotes for specific passages in the book, I can envision this becoming confusing when there are numerous editions, paperback, different online, etc., or at least not consistent. But, it is probably still a good idea. I think I mainly want to tags to work!
Names: I still think that the characters should be listed according to their names without titles, Erasmas and not "Fraa Erasmas." Mainly this seems to be a more standard practice. As for confusion Erasmas himself is, I think, the only character who we are told is named after a Saunt. Also, titles change: e.g., Orolo is a Fraa, nicknamed Pa, then not an Avout and finally a Saunt.
Anteriorlobe 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
See Wikepedia's "How to Edit a Page" for a full reference.
When you link to an external reference, you can put a comment in the link like this:
which would give you a link like this Example
If you left off the comment, you would see just a reference
Which looks like this: 
But if you surround the reference with the REF tags, you can link to the bottom of a page
<ref>Example Web Site[http://www.example.com]</ref>
then put a reference section at the bottom of the page:
which shows up like this:
Astrobleme 14:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
A Table of Contents can be added by putting
at the top of the page
Astrobleme 14:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Footnoted references - fixed!
Anteriorlobe 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Renaming page Edit
What do you thing about moving this page to be something like "Arbre/Earth Connections"?