Talk:Camp Half-Blood Chronicles

Merger

This article is really not much and I can't see it growing much more. We can merge it into it's own section on Percy Jackson & the Olympians. Airplaneman ^talk 00:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - as nom. Airplaneman ^talk 00:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this article is very small and could be easily merged. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - merged! Airplaneman ^talk 03:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Franchise

I have reinvented this article in order to address the franchise as a whole rather than the fictional camp within the franchise. Neelix (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Title Should Be Capitalized

The word "chronicles" in the title of this article should be capitalized. In every title every word is capitalized. I tried to edit the title but I'm obviously missing something, as it repeatedly does not work. Hiretsuna de~yuo (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Camp Half-Blood chronicles" should be capitalized if it were a title. We now treat it as a name of convenience used by us Wikipeditors but not a title.

FWIW there is no such series at ISFDB. There the superseries name is "Percy Jackson Universe" and it now comprehends PJ Olympians, The Heroes of Olympus, and the Kane Chronicles (with Magnus Chase inevitably to follow but not subsumed yet). --P64 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should provide some kind of overview, not enumerate the consituent products by medium and genre --at the moment, all in the lead sentence! and essentially equivalent to enumeration of the table of contents. --P64 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that, overall the whole article needs to be rethought. There are other franchise articles, such as The Lion King and Harry Potter, which include more than just the elements of the franchise. They include plot, development, and reception sections which, if we add, could be a major step towards making this article a good article. Zussman1 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Name for franchise?

This edit by the anon IP raises a good point. I couldn't find a WP:RS calling this franchise "Camp Half-Blood chronicles". The name is unsourced. As far as I can tell, it was invented by the now-inactive editor Cbfcindia (talk · contribs) to broaden the scope of an article about Camp Half-Blood. While it is appropriate that we have an article about the franchise, I think we need to consider the name it carries as something that can be cited to reliable secondary sources. As an aside, is it wise to maintain a separate Percy Jackson (film series), or should we merge it into the franchise article? Elizium23 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I undid the edit until we decide what to call the page/franchise. I personally like the name Camp-Half-Blood Chronicles, considering there is no official name for the franchise. I think that the film franchise deserves a separate page, considering that it is very different from the books and it's development and reception are quite different. Zussman1 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Zussman1, in this case. To paraphrase a comment made by P64 here, because Disney-Hyperion has not released an official name, we here at Wikipedia are relatively free to choose a name just to describe the contents of this particular page. P64 went on to suggest using the ISFDB title "Percy Jackson universe", but I'm not sure that's appropriate here because all of Rick Riordan's works exist in the same universe, and this page is solely about his works involving Greco-Roman mythology (and related media, etc., etc.). Unfortunately, I can't think of a title that's purely descriptive (like "Rick Riordan's series focusing on Greco-Roman mythology") that is both precise and concise.

I also can't find a sourced name for what this article covers, aside from the one it already has (sources using "Camp Half-Blood chronicles" seem to be quoting Wikipedia). Until something better comes along, I have to say keep it but stay vigilant.

Lastly, to Elizium23's aside, I think it is a good idea to maintain a separate page about the film series because a) their fictional worlds and plots are sufficiently different; and b) when an internet user goes looking for "Percy Jackson", they are usually looking for either the movies or the books. They usually want to know about only what they're looking for, but should still be aware of the distinctions. Perhaps we could start a section about the most important differences, on the film series page? Seems hard to do objectively, though. That's my two cents. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The characterization of my position by User:2ReinreB2 is broadly fair but only broadly. I made several suggestions in the previous context where the name "Percy Jackson task force" was under discussion and I suggested that it should be retained, yet used generally. Same as [1] ISFDB uses "Percy Jackson Universe" for the entire series, or high-level series, super-series, metaseries, etc; see Percy Jackson Universe series listing at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. [2] as the website Percy Jackson Brasil --http://percyjacksonbr.com, now suspended by the host-- covers the work of Rick Riordan generally. The name-of-task-force discussion was officially concluded soon afterward. See RRTF Archive 3, section 11 and following.

In my opinion the primary requirement for Wikipedia and perhaps the only important one is to be consistent regarding whether, say, "Percy Jackson universe" is used comprehensively re the Kanes and Magnus Chase; or "Camp Half-Blood" is used comprehensively re the Roman as well as the Greek; etc

Otherwise:

• There is no need to call it a "franchise" at all if the scope is writing plus illustration distributed as print and e-books; that is, if video games, films, dolls, and so on, are excluded.
• Wikipedia need not rename all relevant pages, nor thoroughly rewrite their content, whenever some official use of a name is detected. I don't even agree that's its important to "stay vigilant" about such usages --unless we decide to cover the series brandnames and trademarks explicitly.
• At the moment RickRiordan.com, section Books, presents three faux cover images with titles Percy Jackson, Kane Chronicles, and Magnus Chase as alternative points of entry. Select "Percy Jackson" and visit "Percy Jackson's World" according to its main heading, under which both "Percy Jackson & the Olympians" and "The Heroes of Olympus" are alternatives, among other things, and there is no third series of novels yet listed. "Percy Jackson's World" is thus an official name. At the same time I recall seeing on his homepage sometime this fall a notice that "Camp Half-Blood something or other" returns or continues this spring with Apollo.

--P64 16:34 16:42 continued--P64 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Adaptations section?

Considering that the films, video games, graphic novels, and play are all adaptations and do not necessarily take place in the same universe as the books, short stories, etc. (especially the movies and video games), I think that we should create an adaptations section in which the films, video games, graphic novels, and play are all subcategories. What do you think? Zussman1 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think that the number of level 2 (highest) sections should be decreased, partly by consolidation of sections 4-8 or 5-8 or 6-8. For instance, sections 5-8 as 5.1-5.4. In other words, I agree with something like that.

I am not sure whether sections 1-3 should be distinguished from 4-8 because Rick Riordan is the sole or nearly sole author of the works covered in 1-3. Section 4 is "Other books" and covers only The Ultimate Guide with sole author Mary-Jane Knight (relying on this article alone).

Another secondary issue is whether graphic novels are credited to Riordan primarily, Riordan and Venditti equally, Venditti primarily, etc. Rick Riordan is deemed the author of the graphic novels, or a co-author, or Robert Venditti is deemed the author, or etc. Evidently there is no consensus in the books world but maybe a strong majority opinion? If the graphic novels are considered works by Riordan and the other adaptations are not, there is a case for consolidating sections 4 and 6-8 as adaptations credited to other people.

Consolidation of sections 6-8 alone would represents a focus on medium, books (inclg e-text and audio "books"?) and other.

Offhand I think I would curtail the Contents display at level 3 headings, or two-level Contents. The titles of the novels would drop out (current 1.1.1, 1.1.2). If the film adaptations are also collected with other adaptations as Zussman proposes, then the film titles would also drop out (current 6.1, 6.2).

--P64 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Re The Lightning Thief: the graphic novel: as I understand it, the publisher credits Riordan and downplays others--names no one else the description provided to LC (maybe also posted online, or printed on the back cover or dustjacket flap) [link n.a. now]. Library of Congress catalogs this as by Venditti primarily [link n.a. now]. Some libraries(y) list(s) Vendetti first, Riordan third, of three creators distinguished from the others, OCLC 526057842 --compare "All Authors / Contributors" with "Responsibility". --P64 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of the graphic novel: In general, book publishers, sellers, and reviewers consider graphic novel adaptations to be written by the author of the original books, except in rare cases where the books are public domain and the illustrator is more notable that the original author. However, comic book/graphic novel publishers, sellers, and reviewers generally consider the illustrator/adaptor as the primary author. Libraries classify the books by whosever name comes first on the title page. As such, all three views are equally valid for everything from The Wizard of Oz adaptations to more modern series like Percy Jackson & the Olympians. Wikipeida is not a bookseller, comic store, nor library.

In this specific case, the general public lumps the very-different adaptations in with Riordan's works, hence their inclusion on this page. But exactly what should be done with them here depends on what sort of angle this article is trying to achieve. For example, describing Vendetti as author lends weight to the idea that the adaptations differ significantly from the original texts; doing the opposite stresses Riordan's achievements as an author. Again, any of the three options I list above is valid, and it all depends on how we want to spin it. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably there are also audio adaptations (recorded reading by a cast rather than a single reader would qualify, I suppose) and toy adaptations (Annabeth Chase dolls and plastic tridents).

Section heading "Graphic novels[15]" is a problem. No heading should include < ref> tags. If the point is, we rely on this source to enumerate the official graphic novels, that citation should appear in an appropriate preface --subsection 0 given the current format where each graphic novel is a subsection. The linkname "Rick Riordan" must be changed, too; even at a stage where notes are grossly incomplete, that should be used alone (anywhere at en.wiki in my opinion) only where Riordan is the author (in his case as i understand, pages at rickriordan.com or some blog/etc, not at rickriordan.co.uk or readriordan.com).

On the general issue, it makes sense to me that Riordan's degree of creative control, and which products are deemed canonical by fans, may be influential; rather than to spin "his achievements as an author" greater or less, altho I doubt that is quite what 2ReinreB2 means.

Re sec 3 Myth anthologies, the point must be conveyed that these are large-format coffee-table books lavishly illus. by John Rocco (and written by Riordan, thus certainly canonical text).

Re sec 4 Other books, the only one covered is "written by Mary-Jane Knight", probably with allusion to collaborators other than Riordan (Rocco again?). This should say something, probably relying on front material or chapter 1 that is written or co-written by Riordan. How reliable is MJK regarding the Percy Jackson universe, or PJ's Greco-Roman U.S.A., or whatever it is, and how do we know? Eg, she visited for a weekend and we talked about everything, or whatever he says.

I expect to add more bibliographic data but 2ReinreB2 remarks show that much must be for people who know the adaptations. --P64 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done sections 2 and 4 (not Adaptations) and slightly sec 7 (Theatrical), with numerous hidden comments for attention by others. With major expansion of sec now-4.1 (was 2.6) Demigods and Monsters.

same work done for the small subsec 2.1 The Kane Chronicles#Survival Guide. --P64 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor thing: There are audio adaptations, two editions actually. In English, all versions are read by Jesse Bernstein, listed (as per the norm on audioboks) second to Rick Riordan on the actual covers. Only difference between editions is cover art, to my knowledge. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That Jesse Bernstein is the wrong one and I doubt the right one has a page here. He is sometimes credited as "Jesse Berns" not only by libraries, presumably on title pages, but on the covers. (See WorldCat library records OCLC 82143966 and OCLC 861292356 altho the cover images are too small to read; try Amazon for that. These two also exemplify the "Downloadable audio file" and CD formats respectively.) LC Authorities notes that "Berns" is an alt name of this Jesse Bernstein, as is "Jessie". --P64 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That is weird; I could have sworn the right one had a page when I went looking. The right one is an actor. I'll see if I can track down some more info. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Camp Half-Blood chronicles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100422221552/http://www.rickriordan.com:80/index.php/2008/10/the-demigod-files/ to http://www.rickriordan.com/index.php/2008/10/the-demigod-files/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Making it less of a list

Right now, much of this article feels like a list because of its exceedingly short plot summaries of each item. Maybe we could expand some of the shorter entries to include the importance of items? A few notable awards or something would do a lot to make this page less like a list of links to more descriptive articles, and more like a synopsis of the whole franchise. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Trials of Apollo-related

So far, a page for The Trials of Apollo currently redirects to this page. I suggest that once we get more information about the latest book series, we should get the series it's own Wikipedia page. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rtkat3 -- I agree, though I think that such a page shouldn't be created until there are at least two published things (books or companions) in the series. Ther just aren't enough sources to get a page through AFC otherwise. There is currently a draft in progress for the first book. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)