Talk:Artemis Fowl/Archive 1

Archive 1

WHOOPS

Sorry, someone, I mean someone undid my Merge! Who DID IT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micro101 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Successfully Merged!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Articles merged and redirected. WTF? (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

---

I'm fine with deleting it. I think I only edited it for typos. ~munkee_madness talk 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge would work as well. It doesn't appear notable on its own. --Stormbay (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Everybody! I have merged the articles Lower Elements and Artemis Fowl(novel) together successfully! Come and check it out!

Um, they don't appear to be merged. They definately should be tho.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agreeing with merge. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sixth Book: Small Information

I read in a magazine that book six will contain a character named Dr. Kronski, a hypnotherapist. It should be noted that the hotel Artemis stayed in during Opal Deception is called The Kronski Hotel.

Do you remember which magasine that was? If it's true, it would be great to add, but without a source, it's just a rumour. :(

At least Eoin Colfer mentioned it in his post on AFC-forum... --Ninnnu 19:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a Dr. Kronski in the sixth book. However, he is not a hypnotherapist. He is a insane Extinctionist. ArtemisFowl4 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

K... Proof! Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.16 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

title for the 'good guys'

Shouldn't there be a title for the 'good guys' part of the main characters section, seeing as there is a title for the villains part? - jlao⁰⁴ 07:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there definitely should be. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 21:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Titles

If you look closely, the new covers change the titles of books 2-4 ever so slightly...

• Artemis Fowl: The Arctic Incident is now Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident
• Artemis Fowl: The Eternity Code is now Artemis Fowl and the Eternity Code
• Artemis Fowl: The Opal Deception is now Artemis Fowl and the Opal Deception

Are these title changes offical? Should the article names be moved? Artemis Fowl and the Lost Colony is the only one with a definate "and the" title (i.e., that's the title it was originally released with), so we're fine there. I just wanted to check first.

First of all, this sort of thing belongs on the WikiProject talk page when there is one. Second of all, you are not the only person to of noticed this. I do not believe they should be changed, but a note should be put in the articles about this title change. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 007bond. ArtemisFowl4 (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning?

I agree. And what about the stuff between Holly and Artemis in book six? There are some things that remain better on the pages where they were originally written. Why this? Because it goes nowhere, people. It goes nowhere. Plus, it just raises expectations for people who haven't read book six yet. I remember when I accidentally read a bit of book five before the rest of the books, and it just spoiled the parts where Butler and Julius died because I knew if they would or if they wouldn't. It's not really fair to take the things that come after book one out of the article, but a spoiler warning seems appropriate. Clem (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just browsing through here for info on the sixth book and i noticed there is no spoiler warning at all for the info on this page, despite the fact that the character descriptions and such contain some detailed events in the later books in the series. If i was still reading the first or second books, discovered this page, and without warning found out that Julius dies, Holly resigns and Artemis gains magic, I'd be quite annoyed. Now that i think about it, i cant see how keeping it as it is and just adding a Spoiler Warning will help any newcomers to this great series, they will be forced to look away from the page. I'd just cut down the character descriptions and make them less revealing. 82.10.87.36 18:25, 6 July 2007

I couldn't agree more, my sister was on the 4th book and didn't know that SPOILER! Artemis now has twin brothers and gains magic, it ruined the book for her. work on it!

I'm very sorry about your sister, but I would like to point out this and this. The 2nd link clearly states that "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable." The first link states,

Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. However, since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warning are largely considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the Content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

Again, I see your point. However, with these two pages on Wikipedia covering the point, I disagree. (And note, please sign your posts with ~~~~, please.)IceUnshattered (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are spoilers and they should be removed. The information about the book should be a preview, not what the book is about including: Beginning, Middle, and the end. It ruins the point of reading. Mantaco (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)mantaco

I think there's a line between "this is a Wikipedia article, thus it will cover the subject and might contain spoilers" and "The introduction of the article contains massive spoilers concerning the end of the book series". I came here looking for the title of the last book in the original series, which I hadn't read. Surprisingly, it wasn't apparent in the "Contents" box at the top of the page, because the books are featured as subsubsections, so I clicked on "Series overview"... and the very first sentence I read was "His moral compass develops throughout the series, which concludes with <<<MASSIVE SPOILER ON THE LAST BOOK>> in Artemis Fowl and the Last Guardian.". Thanks, Wikipedia. Now I don't even want to read the book. 77.201.192.61 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Failed

Hello, I failed this GA nomination because of several reasons. First there are no citations for a number of sentences. Things like "The author of the series summed up his books with the line, "Die Hard with fairies."" needs citations to links that verify that he did indeed say that. Another problem is the use of jargon that is unexplained. People who have absolutely no idea who or what Artemis Fowl is would be confused by things like "Hybras" (they won't know its an island in the middle of time which is inhabited by demons). See WP:MOSDEF for more information. Once these issues have been taken care of, put it up at WP:GA or contact me and I will be happy to review the article again. Thanks. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Main Characters I've noticed in the main character list Minerva, Qwan and n01 have been listed. I do not beleive they deserve this status yet as they have only appeared in one book. It should also be taken into consideration that Cudgeon who is a major character in two of the books isn't listed here.

They missed a Bad Guy. There is a totally cool Russian Mafia chick who hires Mulch to break in and kill him (book four?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.127.45 (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) no1 appears in new book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.228.17 (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to conside rm'ing Minerva and Qwan from main characters, but No1 plays an important role in both books 5 and 6. I don't think Cudgeon should be listed, he only did anything much in bk 2.

You mean Carla Frazetti? I wouldn't call her a major character. Her only role was to jump in and hire Loafers and Mulch. Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) so SineBot doesn't have to do too much :D IceUnshattered (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cudgeon should be listed, he played important parts in both Books one and two of the series. In book one, he took command of the Fowl seige and sent in the troll; in book two he was the brains behind the Bwa'Kell Rebellion. Qwan played a major part in Book V, and is only mentioned briefly in Book VI, but becuase of his role in V, I would include him. Minerva should be listed becuase she was a major character in Book V, and is mentioned in Book VI. Carla Frazetti should not be listed as a main character, she was only there to see that Spiro's scientists couldn't break Fowl's eternity Code, hire Mulch and Loafers, and is mentioned lateron for payout reasons. N⁰1 should definitely be listed as a major character, as he is the focus of much of Book V, and the reason much of Book VI is possible. Cdmajavatalk 

Cleanup

I'm just going to keep adding to this as I work:

• the phrase "child criminal mastermind" (first paragraph) sounds pretty awkward to me. Anyone have a revision idea?
• There's a quote from one of the books on the character list, Juliet. I believe it's from the first book. Can someone confirm?
• the phrase "criminal child genius" on the character list, Manerva sounds awkward too.
• the phrase "video professional" under fairies, Argon confused me. I'm not sure what the author was getting at. Anyway, what's his official title?

Does anyone have ideas for anything that should be added to this page? justice 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And I just noticed, on the movie section, it says confirmation is provided below for the film coming out in 2008... no it's not. Does someone have that, or should we rewrite that section? justice 12:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I have fixed it, does it seem better?
2. It is from the third book.
3. Again, changed.
4. It was already changed. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The description for some of the main protagonists really needs to be cleaned up, for example, in Holly's description, it starts to jump around between books, and the quote for Juliet may need to be removed. 24.16.9.223 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Failed second "good article" nomination

This article is far from GA status. There is comprehensive lack of inline citations, with huge entire sections without even a single inline ref. The formatting of two of the scant references is unacceptable, being just a url. Titles, authors and retrieval dates for web references are a necessity. The article is also lacking entirely in some key areas. It's at this point no better than a list of characters. There should be prose section giving an overview of the entire series and its writing and publication history. There should be absolutely be sections on the sales, the critical reception of the series, and how the books compare to one another. VanTucky ^Talk 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Charachter Listings

Hasn't anybody noticed that Leon Abbot is mentioned twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.244.52 (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

He has? If he is, then just fix it. IceUnshattered (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, on the section about Holly, it is mentioned that she kisses Artemis and that they are now romantically involved after The Time Paradox. However, it is not mentioned that the ONLY reason she kissed Artemis was because she was turned into a teenager in the time stream and had teenage emotions. She regretted kissing him afterwards, and it was mutual that the relationship would never work. Minerva13 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point, overall? Do you suggest that we reword it, or remove everything about that out? IceUnshattered (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall, my suggestion is that that section is fixed to represent accurate details, which I wrote in the above paragraph. It was a very vague section and, to be honest, it was misleading to fans who have yet to read The Time Paradox. That is all I was saying, and I would appreciate it if you weren't so rude. Constructive criticism, children! 74.186.174.220 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to be so direct, only trying to get to the point. I didn't totally understand your point. I'll try my best to keep with WP:CIVIL. Okay, I'll take a look at it, but I can't promise I'll do anything. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for individual character pictures

I have noticed that we have not given the sources for the characters pictures on their pages. the ref is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_Fowl:_The_Graphic_Novel could someone please add it for everyone? as i, at the moment, am still getting used to Wikipedia and when i try to add it, it won't let me. Jonxy 12:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the movie being deleted?

I'm wondering why I received a message saying that the upcoming film section of this article is being deleted. It has sufficient backup, and as trailer will be out soon. Someone please explain this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillonthebookworm (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is? Can you provide a diff? IceUnshattered (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Search Artemis Fowl Movie Google (or Yahoo) and you will find relevant sources, including the Artemis Fowl site. But it looks like it was already discovered and someone put it back there so everyones happy.121.91.6.97 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Movie Info

I read that Eoin Colfer said that Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident will be combine into one movie. He also said that there will be a new ending but the rest of it will remain true to the book. Is this reliable or is it too early n development to be so?121.91.6.97 (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"and the"

Why do the articles for the fifth and sixth books omit the "and the" from the centre of the titles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.156.205 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the official titles don't include "and the". I'd support removing those altogether. I'd say go with whatever appeared on the cover of the first edition. Oh, and please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put a little less stress on SineBot. IceUnshattered (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the covers on each article, and it seems the distinction lies between the European and American covers - the American ones omit "and the," but the U.K. covers have included them for several of the most recent books. Are there any video interviews with Colfer in which he names the books, so as to determine which is "canonical" (like Philosopher's Stone vs. Sorceror's Stone for Harry Potter?). 86.136.34.65 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only difference is whether it is UK or US. US versions omit the "and the" while UK versions keep it. To get a canonical ref, look at the book covers. Cdmajavatalk  21:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My query was on which titling system Wikipedia should be supporting, and by suggesting reference to Colfer videos I was hoping to confirm which titles he uses and therefore which ones Wikipedia should use - a Philosopher's/Sorceror's Stone sort of arrangement. 86.134.250.16 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Colfer American? No. So should we use the US convention? No -- Fnlfntsyfn (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Character list

Did Artemis get deleted from the character list at some point or am I just blind? I went through the recent history but I can't find the deletion, was he never included? Million_Moments (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

O_o WHOAH...it's true. How did I not notice that?! Re-added him. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good :) I would have done it myself but assumed the original text was around somewhere! Million_Moments (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it disappeared outright. That was really weird. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Artemis Fowl Collaboration

WikiProject Artemis Fowl has picked this article for it's sort-of-monthly collaboration. Goal is WP:GA or higher. Just a notice... Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl II: Hero V. Villian

Artemis was a villain in the first book, alothough he's been a hero in the successive books, I think He should be included on the Villain list. Cdmajavatalk 

Having him on two lists you mean? I disagree, just mention he is an anti-hero in the first book. Million_Moments (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would work. Right now, it doesn't really mention that, though kidnapping would imply VILLIAN!! Cdmajavatalk 

It would imply. But that's just the first book, and I believe that Artemis' stance changes drastically through the other books though he does retain some of his original...ah..."villain-ness", for lack of a better word. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He qualifies as an Anti-Hero because he does evil deeds for good reasons. He only kindnapped Holly to restore the family fortune, and to fund search parties to locate his father. An evil deed done for a good cause.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, just thought I'd ask. Cdmajavatalk  19:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually opposed to having "villian" and "hero" lists for that very reason. Not only is it more or less un-important, but one of the central themes is that various characters change from being rather villainous to nicer (Artemis being the main one). Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 08:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Artemis is practically a saint throughout the entirety of the series bar the first book so he should definitely be in the Heroes section. Bear in mind however that many heroes in fiction turn evil and many villains turn good. Two good examples would be Vegeta from DragonBall Z and of course Darth Vader who's practically both, he changes so much. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the villian/hero and the major/minor lists should be taken away, and all the characters should be listed by apperance, or A-Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.117.148 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dwarves

I have a few issues with the facts presented in this section.

1. Dwarves aren't afraid of heights, they just never see the need to go that high. Though they will if the need takes them.
2. Dwarves don't have "tendencies" for being criminals. It jsut seems that way, becuase the dwarf we read about is Mulch, or the Brotherhood.
3. When listing the abilities; wouldn't a list be better?
4. The dwarves don't get their nutrition from the soil they chew through, they eat like normal people. Why else would Mulch eat like a pig (no offense to Mulch) whenever given the chance?

That's just the beginning of the list. I've fixed a few things in the section, but I plan on rewriting it later.  Cdmajavatalk  21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, only male dwarves have hinged jaws. Cdmajavatalk  21:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the info. If you feel like it needs to be changed, go ahead. Cdmajavatalk  00:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dwarves should have their own article personally. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They do seem to deserve one, don't they? There is a Dwarf page on Wikipedia, which mentions that there are dwarves in AF. If we created a seperate article for AF's dwarves, it would probably just be merged into that article, or deleted altogether. Any ideas? Cdmajavatalk  21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are fussy about that sort of thing aren't they. Perhaps we should create a list of magical creatures in Artemis Fowl. I think they have a similar list for Harry Potter. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what to do with this one? I'd imagine they'd be more or less the same thing. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellant. It's settled then. We should move the stuff on Dwarves from this article to that one assuming it's not there already. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that dwarf spit has any particular healing properties, human spit has a mild healing salve in it as well as mentioned in The SupernaturalistMysteriousshamrock (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does mention that dwarf spit has healing properties. In the first book after Mulch stuck his thumbs up the goblin's nose to stop from turning into a fireball. ArtemisFowl4 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For those who have no idea ....

... and therefore came to Wikipedia for an explanation, Artemis Fowl is a "young criminal" .... what? Is he human, or fairy, or humans have knowledge of faeries, or what. Some background is needed for the total noobs. 64.252.12.61 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback...I automatically assumed that a "young criminal" would be human unless otherwise stated, but you can be bold and change it for yourself.  :) IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Demons

The section on demons is a bit off. It says they are the second dumbest of the fairy races after trolls. Well, while I won't dispute that they aren't exactly centaurs, what about goblins. Its explicitly stated in the books that goblins have brains the size of rat brains, have less than 10W of electric in the their brain and then there are dozens of more oblique references to their stupidity in the books (most notably commander root in the artctic incident - "Goblins, too stupid to live"). Even the goblin section of the article says that goblins have an incredible lack of intelligence. In comparison, the demons all appear to be pretty smart. They speak in full, complex sentances. Focused, brutal, bloodthirty, savage are all words I can see being applied to them, but stupid, not so much. They can read for one thing, build, have a fire brigade, use tools, none of which are hallmarks of stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.192.200 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I mean the only demon who could be discribed as stupid would be Abbot and he's just insane, not stupid (well maybe a little). ArtemisFowl4 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft construction?

What happened? Is the draft ever going to replace this article? Aside from a few errors, the draft is better than this bulky article that is really a gigantic list in disguise. What is going to be done about the draft? Is it going to sit on the backwaters of cyberspace for the rest of eternity? Thanks. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to be bold and start replacing this article with the draft. Of course, after the draft is on here, it'll need some editing and major updating. Hopefully, implementing the draft will eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, the various problems with the subsections of "Character". Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Extremely belated note: related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Archive#Draft construction?. Removed hatnote linking to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl/Artemis Fowl (series) draft since I've implemented the draft. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Name

I just find it funny that when translated from the original Greek, it means Diane (the) Fool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4202:C7F0:A00A:3961:A349:8F38 (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone more familiar with the series than I care to add it to this list

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy series (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

But I have to say, that list is pure original research, and it utterly fails to capture interesting distinctions between how fantasy creatures are portrayed by different authors. For example, trolls in Artemis Fowl emit a potent venom from their claws that make their victims happy while being eaten, demons aren't all evil, they can be any alignment, and live in a society not much different from any other except it's in the underworld, pixies exhaust their magic and must replenish with an acorn-planting ritual, dwarfs smell gold and can tunnel through dirt by un-hinging their jaw and eating it, compressing it and ejecting highly dense material out the other end (and they can store intestinal gas at high pressure sufficient to propel them into the air). And all the fairy-folk possess technology far superior to the modern-day humans living on the Earth's surface. The series presents traditional fantasy creatures in very unique ways. Frankly, I don't believe that list article should be kept without significant changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)