Talk:Cryptonomicon

... and Cryptonomicon links to Qwghlm under "see also". Not sure if there used to be a Qwghlm article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.1.79 (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There was once such, with an edit history back to 2004. I'll take out the see alsoDankarl (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a similar issue with Kinakuta; also mentioned in this article, also used to have an article of its own, also now redirects to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merpius (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unlinked. Should the gist of these 2 go into this article as subsections?Dankarl (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think they should to at least some extent. Kinakuta for sure since it plays a much larger role in Cryptonomicon than it does in Baroque Cycle. Qwghlm perhaps should go in the Baroque Cycle and be linked from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merpius (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

qwghlm had a pretty biggish article for a while. If it was considered significant enough to get its own article back in the day, seems like it should at least get a section here. If for no other reason than so people know why they were redirected. . . 131.151.26.211 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Qwghlm definitely needs a section here, especially because Mary Smith is referred to twice as "Qwghlmian," which has to be extremely confusing to anyone not already familiar with the term. Maybe it doesn't need a whole article (although that would be great because I think it's hilarious), but some reference somewhere on Wikipedia is definitely in order. Baleener (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm getting sick and (expletive deleted) tired of seeing "non-significant" articles related to this series of bestselling, genre-changing novels deleted with false redirects, without any serious review, while every species of celery or centipede Tolkien, Rowling or Lucas dreamed up get their own wiki-shrines! Bridgman (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, firstly, new posts should go at the bottom of a thread. Secondly, there are numerous dispute resolution processes available. Have you attempted to have your concerns addressed through any of these? If not, it may be worth pursuing. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. Bridgman (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I restored Mary to the list of characters, as her absence left a subsequent mention unclear. However the entry states "Mary cCmndhd (pronounced "Skuhmithid" and anglicized as "Smith")": I think the anglicization is in the novel but I am less sure of the pronunciation being there. Anyone know where this contention came from? Does it need a citation?Dankarl (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Found it in the book. I was enjoying the reread too much to remember to note the page number.Dankarl (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's on page 550 in my copy. In "Courting", the section with the graphs of productivity. No precise pronunciation given.

"... incoming mail ... addressed to someone named cCmndhd. ... Rod and Mary are Qwghlmian! And their family name is not Smith — it just sounds vaguely like Smith."

—WWoods (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Currently she is duplicated between the WWII and both storylines sectuions. This is illogical but the location of the section leads to confusion when characters are mentioned before they are identified. Possible solutions would be to move the both storylines section to the top of the section, or to put the characters into the sections where they mostly figure or are first introduced, possibly with a cross reference in the other section. Comments?Dankarl (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd almost say the characters should be listed in order of apperance in the story regardless of the timeline in which they appear prominently; that information can be included in the character's description. Not a qualified opinion, though. As for the anglicization...if someone has to look it up anyway, wouldn't hurt to provide a page number if they find one. (smile) Doniago (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse appears to be partly a fictionalization of Atanasoff who also went from Iowa state (inventing arguably the first computer) to the Navy. Should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? Thanks, Shahar Goldin (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not unless it's mentioned in a reliable source. Doniago (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't remember this from the prologue (found when looking for sources):

When not marching back and forth on the flood plain of the Skunk River making loud dinging noises, Lawrence was majoring in mechanical engineering. He ended up doing poorly in this area because he had fallen in with a Bulgarian professor named John Vincent Atanasoff and his graduate student, Clifford Berry, who were building a machine that was intended to automate the solution of some especially tedious differential equations.

The basic problem for Lawrence was that he was lazy. He had figured out that everything was much simpler if, like Superman with his X-ray vision, you just stared through the cosmetic distractions and saw the underlying mathematical skeleton. Once you found the math in a thing, you knew everything about it, and you could manipulate it to your heart's content with nothing more than a pencil and a napkin. He saw it in the curve of the silver bars on his glockenspiel, saw it in the catenary arch of a bridge and in the capacitor-studded drum of Atanasoff and Berry's computing machine. Actually pounding on the glockenspiel, riveting the bridge together, or trying to figure out why the computing machine wasn't working were not as interesting to him.

I do think this should be mentioned in the article.

Shahar Goldin (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I still don't think it's appropriate unless a third-party source took note of it or Stephenson has stated so himself. Either way a source other than an excerpt from within the obviously fictitious text is necessary. Doniago (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I added this into the Category: 1990s science fiction novels Transcendentalist01 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cryptonomicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150321041328/http://corporation9592.com/Old_site.html to http://corporation9592.com/Old_site.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140519090601/http://www.bibliographic.info/Le-Code-Enigma--Cryptonomicon--1- to http://www.bibliographic.info/Le-Code-Enigma--Cryptonomicon--1-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've started a discussion about changes to the lead in multiple Neal Stephenson novel articles at Talk:Snow Crash#American and wikilinking genre in the lead. Please join the discussion there if you're interested. Woodroar (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply