Talk:The Dresden Files

Misc

Edited 'Books in the Series' section with a notification of a well known fact about The Dresden Files - that each fifth book is about The Order of the Blackened Denarius - and user RJFJR decided that my clear, concise, well reasoned and written statement of fact required removing. This is why I don't edit Wikipedia of any kind of Wiki website; my edits, regardless of merit, are removed almost instantly by another user without any actual grounds to do so. - Olliejmiles [Wikipedia], or @KlokwerkSolja, Vivatdraco@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliejmiles (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This book series is one of the best I've ever read. If you haven't read it, do yourself a favor and rectify that. -GG Crono

Go ahead and merge it. I don't know how. -GG Crono

To whomever added the extended characters page: We should really keep this page trimmed a bit. The small bits really don't tell the reader of this article much. If you feel up to writing a mini-bio, go for it, but I'd prefer to keep this trim and informitive. -GG Crono

Hi, I was the person who inserted the long list of characters. I am planning to first do a listing before doing a more in-depth write up about each of them, as well as preparing a base for anyone who is interested in doing the write-ups. I admit that telling too much about the story could be detrimental to readers but that is what the spoiler warning is for. Furthermore, I would think that we should include as much canon information as possible to make this article complete; too trimmed would make it nothing much more than a stub. Neofaun 17:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To GG Crono: I just noted that you have again removed the list of characters. I understand that you want to keep the article small but I question the need for it. Readers can scroll and choose to read the bits they are interested and the way I understand how Wikipedia works is that any reliable information should be in an article. Furthermore, I personally find it rude to excise whole sections of information (twice) that someone have taken a lot of trouble to insert without giving any warning or allowing the matter to be further discussed. I am going to restore what you took out again. If you have any issues, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you and any other interested parties to come to a common consensus. Neofaun 17:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well noted. I was just doing what I thought looked better. As such, I think it would be best to not add entries to the list until they can be filled out with more than a line or two of information. In any case, I won't change it again. Apologies. -GG Crono

Thank you for your understanding. I have given some thought about your concern that the completed article might look bloated and unwieldy. A possible solution would be to create a 'Characters of The Dresden Files' sub-page which would be devoted solely to all the characters and their bios. What say you?Neofaun 12:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with having a sub-page for the characters. It would help greatly and let the main page appear more organized and uncluttered.Jordan 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Someone else create it, though. Someone whose Wiki-Fu is stronger than mine. -GG Crono

LOL, I will try to spare some time and get around to it (eventually) but my Wiki-Fu is not really great either. Anyone who wishes to have a go at it in the meantime is more than welcome to.Neofaun 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi I was doing a search for Jim Butcher

And I didn't see an Author Bio With The Dresden Files , And I'm new at the Wiki so I dont feel comfortable at editing the page yet, so If some one could add one It would be great

The Author Bio wouldn't be in this article. See the article on Jim Butcher.

Hi I was going to add the ISBN for Wizard at Large

the book club edition and I couldn't add it because of the chart. Here is the ISBN13 (9780739476581) October 2006. If the creator of the chart could please add this to the list I would be greatful. --Sandpanther 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone added An ASIN Number to the chart the ISBN Number Is Listed in the previous post. The ISBN is in the new ISBN13 Format. If someone could the ISBN to the chart I would be greatful --Sandpanther 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a chart, it's a template. You can edit it by going to Template:The Dresden Files bibliography. - Debuskjt 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Breakout of Characters

I'm going to breakout the characters into a separate article. Reformatted and reworded them a lot to fit better with Wiki, too.

Yes, they really should be seperate. It couldn't hurt to be more consise in the introduction either, it doesn't read as well as it might. - On a side note, I've read the first three books myself, they're fairly interesting but nothing to go crazy over. -

They get better. Read 5-8

You mean "Bob explains that the Norse berserkers were lycanthropes." isn't anough of a description of who Bob is? I haven't read any books and I notice the TV show doesn't do much to explain who BOb is... at least they do a better job than wiki. Who the hell is Bob?

Bob in the books is totally different from Bob on the TV show. In the books he is a genius air spirit bound to a skull. On the show he is the ghost of a long dead wizard.

Rewrites

This article needs serious revision in the writing department. I plan on going over the vampire court articles specifically, when I find the time. Probably when winter break comes around in two weeks. Oneangrypirate 12:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) oneangrypirate

Starting on the revision. Revamped the Black and Jade court pieces for now. Just basic reorganization and diction changes, and I added a little bit. Oneangrypirate 22:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC) oneangrypirate

I believe that there is an error in the description of the Red Court. It describes them as being organized in a feudalistic caste system. However, caste systems are hereditary with little social mobilitity. In the books the vampire Bianca is promoted into the nobility which seems to imply that they have a purely feudalistic organization.

Constantine?

Is this series at all related to the DC comic character John Constantine, a recurring character primarily in the vertigo seies of books with large roles in Hellblazer the primary book featuring that character as well as minor roles in sandman, shade the changing man, the books of magic, etc. I'm just asking cause the concept of combining hardboiled detective with a wizard seems characteristic enough to note the similarities? Has the author ever commented one way or the other on a similar question?--72.200.80.15 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They are unrelated. - Debuskjt 02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking of which, there really should be a Trivia section. Jim Butcher himself said that there is many homages in his books(Characters having names similar to "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", quotes from the "Evil Overlord List", homages to "Star Wars" and "Lord of The Rings") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.118.105.52 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

More exactly, they are unrelated, save that Butcher has no qualms about making literary allusions to other works... which, yes, may well include John Constantine. Abb3w 23:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time someone replicated an existing character and altered them slightly for their own stories... For some reason James Bond/Jason Bourne comes to mind most vividly. (StarkeRealm 07:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Actually, there's a character called Nick Carter [IIRC] who is an almost direct copy of James Bond...

...Going so far as to be advertised and reviewed as "Nick Carter out Bonds James Bond" - tho that's not necessarily why he was written, just them using Bond as the hook to sell carter.

As of this time, there's a whole spate of detective/magic-type books out there

Synner667 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New Section

When someone does the cleanup for this article, they may want to consider putting in a section on how magic and paranormal zoology differ from other universes. The use of swords and guns by magic users, for starters, is not often seen in other universes. The Taped Crusader 09:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Gatekeeper

The following sentence does not seem justified to me: He is the keeper of the Outer Gates, and has the power to see the past and future. The part about job is specualtion as is the suggestion that he knows the future (especially given it could be a violation of the 7th law of magic). I've moved it here unless we can justify it. RJFJR 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In the eighth Dresden novel, Proven Guilty, pp. 39-41, Bob the Skull talks to Harry about the Gatekeeper giving Harry a warning about black magic in town that he, Harry, needs to put a stop to, and the possibility of temporal paradox. Here's the portion of the conversation that relates to the Gatekeeper's possible powers:

"[The Gatekeeper] got this from hindsight, he had to," Bob said.

"Hindsight," I murmured. "You mean he went to the future for this?"

"Well," Bob hedged. "That would break one of the Laws, so probably not. But he might have sent himself a message from there, or maybe gotten it from some kind of prognosticating spirit. He might even have developed some ability for that himself. Some wizards do."

So while we don't know what the Gatekeeper's powers are, it seems to be canon that he has some method--although we don't know what it is--of foreseeing future events. --Rhysdux 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the description is not really ability to see events of the future and past, but more the ability to communicate through the stream of time. From the quotes of Bob, it seems he looks back at the past, then sends the message to himself in the past. I think of the following analogy, passing a note in class, its trecherous to get it from the front row to the back row, but sometimes you can see some things up front that you can't in back. The actual medium for this kind of communication is unclear, if he sends it to himself in a manner he will recognize as something from the future. Or the way it sounds more likely to me is the prognosticating line. Meaning that he looks at the current state of affairs and INFERS possible future scenarios, then goes about preparing for them. When one is no longer viable then it obviously will not become the future. Bob leaves this open as either his' (the gatekeeper) ability or that of a spirit he employs. --Trs8200 10:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Progressive/conservative

Whoever keeps changing the info on the council to say that Dresden et al. is more on the progressive side of the council you have it backwards - changed it back with more clarity. The progressive/modern approach is that of the Merlin and his flunkies... If the Merlin had been more conservative Dresden and him would get along a lot better :)

The whole dichotomous labels should be removed as it's POV. You can describe their position on specific stances without resorting to either side being progressive/conservative. - Debuskjt 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

We need to create, at the very least stubs, articles for the books and appriopriate edits to the disambuigation pages.--Thanks, Yossi842 00:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the vampire, werewolves, etc portions should be moved to there own respective articles, just a suggestion, seems as how this article is extremely heavy on text, and yes, lol, I know this is an encycolpedia but it should still have pictures and the like.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of what? The Dresden Files universe is entirely textual. There's nothing to post pictures of. - Debuskjt 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is, actually, book illustrations, some featuring the creatures listed above(well at least illustration of newest book had ghouls in it).as for different article - All of Organization stuff should be moved into new articles (Creatures of Dresden Files or Organizations of Dresden files) With the possibility, on latter on, when more books are released - to divide it even more(Like article for White Council, Article for Vampire Courts and so on), its just too much stuff for main article...and it will increase as the new books are released...--88.118.105.52 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Audiobooks

On the listing of Audiobooks, #4 is listed as Fool Moon. It should be Summer Knight. Not sure if the ISBN number is correct. I'd change it myself, but I'm not sure how. The WikiForce is not strong in me (yet) NotThatKat 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. - Debuskjt 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the 5th book was recently released as audio book. Perhaps someone could confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.94.156.128 (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

UK editions

Is it worth listing the UK paperback editions separately? They have different ISBN numbers (my copy of Dead Beat is 978-1-84149-528-6), different cover art, and the latest book, White Night, is out in paperback here.

Edit: No it isn't; It was Proven Guilty I found.145.8.171.98 13:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Knights of the Cross speculation

There is a paragraph that has been added twice to the section on the KotC. Personally, I believed it to be speculative, and outside of the bounds of the article, but it was added again. Here is the text of it:

There is also the possibility of a fourth sword considering that 4 nails were most likely used in the crucifiction due to the fact that either 2 nails or one long one would need to be used for his feet. Also, due to a possible equality of power among the nights, a bigger, stronger, or longer nail could prove to have stronger effects upon the sword.

From my reading of the books, nothing about this is in there, and as such, such speculation is not appropriate for this article. Please add your imput. --Donovan Ravenhull 07:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, this does seem to be purely speculative. Only actual canon or prominent theories from fandom (explicitly mentioned as such) should be presented in the article.

Mrobfire 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The same IP address (70.88.195.141 (talk)) that added the previous text seems to have made another, similar unfounded claim:

It is also possible that Excalibur is a fourth sword, or one of the swords itself.

My recollection of the books is that there is also no mention of this tidbit, and therefore I've removed it. If I'm wrong, please feel free to add it back in with a citation of the appropriate novel. -- Elch Yenn 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember Micheal commenting that Merlin (i.e., the Athurian legend) kept his sword at one point. I will have to dig for my books to see if he made the direct reference to his sword having been Excalibur. I believe this was in the same conversation where Micheal tells Harry he knows about Harry's exposure to the Denarian. If I'm alive enough when I get home (I work midnights), I'll see if I can dig up my copy. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I used Amazon's "Search Inside" feature to look up all references to "Merlin" in "Proven Guilty". p.383-384 of the hardcover edition has the conversation between Michael and Harry where Michael states that the original Merlin was briefly the custodian of Amoracchius. Although the name Excalibur is never specifically mentioned, the text does suggest it:

"Wow. You mean ... that sword right there. Your sword is ..." I left it unsaid.

"Probably," [Michael] said, nodding. (Proven Guilty, pp. 383-384)

I notice that the original text I removed speculating that Excalibur is a 4th sword was added back in. I'll reword it assuming that the contributor was referring to this passage. -- Elch Yenn (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Going to edit the article, I noticed that the point about Excalibur possibly being Amoracchius was already in the description of Amoracchius in the same section. I've made a minor edit clarifying that Merlin's possession of Amoracchius was stated as fact, so the article now retains the suggestion that Excalibur may be Amoracchius. I've also again removed the unsourced statement that Excalibur was a 4th sword separate from the three revealed in the books. -- Elch Yenn (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Street Wolves

I have deleted the section on the street wolves since I felt it was lacking any useful content. Furthermore this section only pertains to a very minor group of characters in the novel that don't deserve treatment in their own section. Mrobfire 22:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gold Denarius?

I don't recall mention of this; source book? Abb3w 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing text (below)

There is also one more angel that is bound within a burned gold Roman denarius.

pending someone providing a source; I'll be rereading from Death Masks on looking for it. Abb3w 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found no reference to this anywhere in the books I have. I can't rule it out appearing in White Night, "Something Borrowed", or "It's My Birthday, Too". However, I saw no reference to it in Death Masks (novel), Blood Rites (novel), Dead Beat (novel), or Proven Guilty (novel). Abb3w 11:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor update: it's not in "Something Borrowed" (dealing with Fae and Werewolves), "It's My Birthday Too" (dealing with Black and White Court vampires LARPing), or "Heorot" (dealing with Mac, Ms. Gard, a spawn of the Grendel, and a few psycho fae kitties). If there's reference anywhere, it's probably fanfic, board speculation, or yet-unpublished material subject to revision. 69.68.185.70 (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Source address for the originating edit seems to be from the same unsubstantiated "4th sword" speculation above. Abb3w (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Omnibus

What are "Omnibus editions" - how about explaning that. --IceHunter 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a common Book Club tactic; reprints under a single cover of two or more previously published shorter volumes, with (generally) a new title. A quick glance at my bookshelves turns up MZB's "The Children of Hastur" for a non-Butcher example. Someone ought to do something about the redirect at omnibus edition to indicate its meaning in the world of dead trees. Abb3w 11:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup and Rewrite

I've been thinking of cleaning this up, and the addition of the Wikipedia:Notability tag has pushed me into making an attempt. I like the content here (and loved the novels), so I'm not inclined to kill anything, but the vast majority of the information is clearly in-universe. I'm thinking that the article needs narrative, publishing history, plot summary (of the series - more detailed plots should be on the individual book pages) and should acknowledge the TV series and RPG as well as giving greater precedence to the novels. I would like to see sections such as Organizations spun off into separate pages, but I figure that this is something that should be discussed here first, so I won't be touching them. My biggest lack at the moment is decent articles discussing the series of novels (TV series easy, novels hard) although I'm planning to reference a few of the interviews floating around. Any help would be much appreciated, and let me know if I'm stepping on any toes. Bilby (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The only note I would put in is that unless written in an extrodinary manner with 4000 refs and such, any spin-off articles would probably get nuked in current enviroment around here. Seen it happen with some other similar material. Other than that, I'll support you in your efforts here. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I can probably do the 400 refs (unfortunately, I have lot of experience), but I know what you mean, especially at the moment. :) However I think we have a quandary - as things stand the article is very much in-universe, but the material is still very good. It was great when I was reading the novels. So I don't want to delete it. However, I can't see the in-universe, cleanup and non-notable tags being removed while it is there. Would Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter be a valid model, with the subpages such as Anita Blake mythology? Bilby (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i have no idea how to edit this but I JUST finished White Night (Dresden Files Book9) and the paperbacks ISBN is 978-0-451-46155-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuhlenkott (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if any body's still reading this, but I did a bit of work on the article today and wanted to mention it in case anyone else wanted to work on improving it.

I've done a little bit of copy editing and formatted the article to get related sections together. For the sake of organization I placed the plot related elements first (as recommended by the novels wikiproject). Some of this could probably be merged or trimmed but I don't feel confidant enough in the material to do that since I'm only up to book 3 yet. The 7 rules of magic would probably be deemed unencyclopedic fan material but I left it there for the time being. Same goes for the pop culture reference article. The description of the staff glowing on the cover of each book was definitely unencyclopedic so that I did remove it, but if anyone wants to write about the art from a real world point of view -- how the artist came on board, methods and style, ect -- that would be fine.

Next publication information, which at the moment is just a list of different formats of publishing it. I didn't change anything major, but some improvements could be made. The list of books released could be expanded to include a one paragraph summary each, like some TV seasons do. Other media is fine where it is. I did like the section about the comic book adaptation and how the series itself came to be. Any chance we could get more citations in here?

One thing that is missing from this article is critical response. Have there been any reviews from major literary critics? Any sales records? This would be a good place to add "real world information" and citations. Hewinsj (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good. I've got a lot of critical response references to build in (I've been collecting them for a while now), so, if things go well, I'll see what I can do over the weekend. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I'm not sure how much you have, but take your time and do what you can. It could probably go after the publishing history section. I'm going to take a look at some other literary articles when I have time time to see how they are laid out. Hewinsj (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dresden Files book 12

Hiya guys. Can anyone give me some source you got to know of the twelfth Dresden Files book ("Changes") from? I was unable to spot this on Jim Butcher's page, as well as google it out. Thanks in advance. - Iyoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.87.2 (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I remember hearing it in this podcasts at Butcher Block BB016 - Reading Ahead. He says it towards the end. I hope this helps.--Nikpack (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Accords

I have looked around the various Dresden files pages and can't find the Unseelie accords mentioned. They could be included in various ways, but I think the series of articles could gain in clarity if we created a new page on the rules that governs the supernatural world in the Dresden universe, and merge the existing page on the seven laws of magic into it. This article would include:

• The Accords: their content (rules on duels, safeguards, neutral grounds, etc.) and signatories, included the freeholding lords mentioned in White night(*).
• The 7 laws of magic, i.e. the laws that govern human wizards use of magic
• The laws that govern faeries use of magic: the fact that faeries magic is different from human magic, the no-telling lies rule, the compulsions, etc.
• The general rules of the Nevernever
• Something about the nature of the Outsiders and their world

(*)Quote from White night, chapter 43: "...twenty on the whole planet. Two dragons, Drakul -the original, not baby Vlad- the Archive, the CEO of Monoc securities, some kind of semi-immortal shapeshifter guru in the Ukraine, people like that. The Accords let them sign on as individuals. They have the same rights and obligations." (De fideli (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Reorganization of pages

The division of the Plot part of this article could be improved I think. It doesn't make much sense to have separate pages for groups and organizations. And we need to add a page that explains what the supernatural world involves in the Dresden Universe.

So, I suggest we keep three subsections under the "Plot" headline:

• The supernatural universe (see my post about the Accords)
• The characters
• The groups and organizations.

I'd like some feedback and your thoughts before I go ahead with this.(De fideli (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Chicago Technical Errors

As a resident of Chicago I can attest that the author's understanding of what Chicago is actually like seems to come exclusively from research due to a number of errors that occur throughout the series (streets that don't actually intersect, descriptions of neighborhoods that are flat-out wrong, etc.). There should probably be a mention of that on the page. And I know, citations needed, I just don't have any copies at hand. --67.175.159.243 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Has anyone thought of a timeline for the Dresden Files? I just read the first sentence from Changes, the 12th book, and it talks about Harry and Susan's daughter, but I don't know how old she could be since he's not consistent with the time between novels. Anyone want to help me make one. Not by year, since he never really gives specific reference to a year, but just by how many years are between books.

By the way, the first sentence can be found on his Twitter page located at http://twitter.com/longshotauthor. It's a few posts down, but he gives the first sentence of the next book, due out sometime in 2010, tentatively April. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEPhunkMan713 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Total Number of Books

Jim Butcher's site (on the email him page) says that there are going to be 23 books in the series "20 'case books,' like those we've seen so far, plus a 3-book apocalyptic trilogy" should that go in the article somewhere? --Blackstone Dresden (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link to the specific quote from his site? This sort of thing could go under a production heading if it could be verified. Hewinsj (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

http://jim-butcher.com/feedback/ Third question down in the FAQ bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackstone Dresden (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Jim said somewhere that Mac's name/identity will be revealed in the apocalyptic trilogy so should that get added? --206.176.103.199 (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The books in the Apocalyptic Trilogy will allegedly (according to Butcher and subject to revision) be called Stars and Stones, Hell's Bells (cue the AC/DC lawsuit) and Empty Night --Blackstone Dresden (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There will probably be more than 20 case books, according to the newest Jim Butcher interview (afair "Changes" promo party in Portland), since "Changes" was originally supposed to be the tenth book, but the story has streched. So at least 24-25 books altogether! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.53.153 (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The listing of Side Jobs as the 13th novel in the Dresden Files should be removed. That is an anthology of all the short stories that have taken place throughout the series so far and a couple that take place after Changes. It is not a novel really continuing the story and should be listed in the short stories section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.45.33 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely--the article even includes the info that "Ghost Story" is the 13th novel in the series... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.27.91 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And to confirm it, the author's website shows Ghost Story directly following the twelfth one, without Side Jobs between them, and he specifically refers to Ghost Story as "Dresden 13" in comment #75 of this. I'll change it. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Story: Incorrect Release Date

On Amazon it says that the 13th book will be released on April 5th, and it says it will be released in April on Jim Bitcher's website: This needs to be changed from what it currently says(March something or other.) I tried to figure out how to change it, but it won't come up when I press the edit button!

It has been postponed to July, and the entry has been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.58.230 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

Good work. A well written summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.166.15.114 (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Book 14

Book 14 of the Dresden Files will be entitled "Winter Knight"--source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0K3XM-Ghc (after 2:30). Someone might want to add this to the article, I'm not very wiki-savvy.

It's "Cold Days" now. See http://twitter.com/longshotauthor/status/54775910271942657 and http://twitter.com/longshotauthor/status/54776803570614272 for the 2011 release...though I suppose that might just be a due date for Jim and not a release. I've updated the template but am unsure about how to cite within templates...plus it's very late.Kufat (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

July 1st is when the manuscript is due to the publisher. Tentative release is in October: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31273.0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.146.7.1 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrent ISBN

In the bibliography, the hardcover ISBN for the 12th book in the series, Changes, is invalid and yields no search results. The correct one is:
0-4514-6317-X
as you can see on the Amazon page for it. I tried to figure out how to change it, but accessing the page that it's on is too complicated for me. --Flib (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot cleanups

I'm planning on taking on a long-term slow-motion project of cleaning up / reducing the plot summaries on the novel articles. I've been working on Cold Days over the last couple weeks and plan to move elsewhere in the series afterwards. If anyone would like to assist / collaborate, let me know! --ElHef (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Skin Game Date

The table says the date is the 3rd of december, 2013. However, I can find no confirmation of this fact anywhere, nor is there a citation in the table or at the bottom. http://www.jim-butcher.com/books/dresden/skin-game-15 is a page from the author's website, and it too has no information on a date. Is it bogus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcd2000 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the date for the hardcover edition offered by Amazon.co.uk. dates have been pushed back, but on the whole I would trust the site for being correct on such things - their livelihood and reputation depend on it. There is now also the date for the paperback edition. Ngebendi (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Amazon date has been updated, so I pushed the date back a bit, as per what their site says. 70.51.235.13 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

December 3 is the date of the anthology Dangerous Women that includes a Molly short story. That being the case, Amazon etc are doing the normal practice of making up dates and just grabbed this one from the anthology. Until we get confirmation I say it's incorrect. Xeddicus (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

See here. Ngebendi (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Amazon is not Jim Butcher or his publisher. That page proves nothing. Amazon makes up release dates all the time for everything since it's required to sell pre-orders. Xeddicus (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty well-known that Amazon puts whatever they think for release dates. Amazon's release date is not an authoritative source. Until Butcher's own site or his publisher provide a release date, everything else is speculation. December 3 could still be correct, but no one (least of all a random Amazon.com drone) knows for sure - or if they do, they're not saying.Ilaeria (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. And 97% of the times I preordered something on Amazon, it was shipped two days in ADVANCE of the publication date. Personal experience. Ngebendi (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Amazon just pushed the date on Skin Game back to July 3rd sometime today, even though the publisher still shows May 27th. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Table listing Dresden Files books

This shows up when editing as "{ {The Dresden Files bibliography} }" no spaces between the brackets.

I expected to find a wikitable. I'm not sure the above is a reference to somewhere else, just a title, or ???

Anyway, how do I find the table of books? I want to add a column for Audio Publisher, and remove a lot of verbage following the table that just lists dates and companies and contains dated references.

Thanks HiTechHiTouch (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Check here. Ngebendi (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OR

diff looks like OR to me. RJFJR (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it has been removed. RJFJR (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Jim Butcher has addressed this on reddit with the following quote:

What, the Denarians appearing on multiples of five? Did you check your math on that one? I'm sure that's not right. That would indicate a pattern and some kind of plan, and everyone knows I'm making this stuff up as I go. I just said so, right up there.
See you in AZ!

— Jim Butcher, I am Jim Butcher, author of the Dresden Files, the Codex Alera and the upcoming Cinder Spires! Ask Me Anything!

This seems to indicate a sarcastic agreement with the notion (as Butcher is well known for his sarcasm), but since it's never explicitly confirmed, I agree that it needs to stay out of the article.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot Section

Does anyone else feel the Plot section is not very focused on much of anything (particularly the plot), and is maybe just a little too long? The second paragraph, in particular, seems to be somewhat out-of-place and unnecessary. I might write up a quick suggested alternative and throw it up here, but does anyone have any thoughts? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That'd be welcome. MinorStoop (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it should probably be changed to an "Overview" section and possibly expanded slightly. The political situation of the supernatural world is very important to most of the books (from the third one on), but has almost no coverage. An actual plot summary would be nice, but it should be no more than a few sentences, listing the types of enemies Dresden has fought in prosaic form and giving a brief outline of the so-called 'Black Council'. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking along similar lines of an "Overview," although I'm not certain it should be lengthened per se. I think one good paragraph, not much longer than what we have (if at all) should do it. I'm going to see if I can put something together now. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My only concern is that there's a level of plot to the series (as opposed to the individual books) that isn't obvious from the plot summaries of the books and which isn't covered at all by any of the articles (the steady encroachment of the black council and the fact that they are behind numerous incidents in the books which are otherwise unexplained). Also, there's the issue of the 'Dresdenverse' being markedly dissimilar to our own world, thus requiring some background and explanation, hence my mention of the politics above. I could see an overview section being quite short (basically consisting of the top paragraph of the plot section), with perhaps an additional section on the world in which the books take place. What do you think? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point, although my personal feeling is that Plots and Overviews on a series page should be rather limited; I'm not sure there's a need to go into anything beyond a very cursory overview. Your point about the differences in the "Dresdenverse" is a good one that I'm not entirely sure how to implement, although I tried in my "draft." AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anywho, I did a quick restructuring/rewrite of the plot section in one of my sandboxes. Basically, I tried to streamline things a bit, add some of what I thought was more pertinent (and tried to add some of what was brought up here). You all can feel free to go read it over and make changes as you like, and hopefully we'll settle on something quick. What do you think? AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this? Links, I think, should point to the Dresdenverse variety of the creatures; at least a point can be made to do so. The rest might just be a liking for another variety of english. MinorStoop (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

On a second thought, we might merge the "Plot" and "Organizations" headers in one ("Overview") with the "characters" and "organizations" main article links under the same header. MinorStoop (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your changes look good to me. I just left links ass they were in the original article (except for the Outsiders link I added myself), and I agree we should make a point of directing to Dresdenverse where possible. The changes in wording look good, too. We can look into merging Organizations, but I don't mind it as it is, particularly as it's currently worded. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fact is that the "Overview" header being of a higher level than the "Organizations" one feels unbalanced. To me at least. MinorStoop (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; it seems like it's a legitimate subsection of an overview, while the stuff above it is simply, well, and overview. That being said, I'm open to either adding a subheading to the first section, or combining the two sections, if you have an idea how to go about it. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the Overview section, as it is in the draft, is at least good enough to be merged into the general article, where we (and anyone) can continue changing or tweaking it. If no one objects, I'm inclined to pull the trigger later today. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This works for me. If it doesn't for you, we can always go back two versions and use that one. MinorStoop (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems pretty mixed up and muddled this way, to me. I do prefer the version with a subsection, but I think we should just leave it like this for now to see what Mjolnir thinks, when he gets back on. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We'll wait for him, then. MinorStoop (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Or a little while. I just wouldn't mind a third set of eyes, and I should focus on real work for a while anyhow. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I made some edits. Take a look and let me know what you think. I think I've structured it so that it doesn't really need subsections. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that it's now a bit of a, for lack of a better term, mishmash. It goes senetence by sentence, talking about Dresden, then organizations, then magic, then organizations, then back to Dresden. I've moved stuff around and tried to merge the initial (sectioned) article with your changes into and (unsectioned) article, that makes more sense in its organization to me while hopefully working as an unsectioned Overview.

You all can make whatever changes you like (or revert if you think it necessary), and then I'm going to move it back to the page in whatever form, so we (and others) can continue tweaking it on the actual page. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My only concern right now is the structure. Each paragraph should be about one subject, with the last sentence of the preceding paragraph leading into the next. I've restructured it with that in mind. As of this edit, the first paragraph gives an overview of the dresdenverse, ending with an outline of the politics and the brief description of Harry. That provides a nice segue into the second paragraph, which outlines the overall events of the series. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Just as an addendum: I, too would prefer a series of subsections, but that would require significant expansion to do it right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to go ahead and move the changes back over to the main article, so everyone can just make changes here, going forward. This has been good work, I think, thanks! AtomsOrSystems (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Black/Gray Council edits

@IronGargoyle:

I'm not sure that this is the place nor the way to mention the Black and Gray Council. First, this is the most general Dresden Files page, only an introductory overview is needed. Second, the Councils were important in Turn Coat, and things have moved on since that book; since Cold Days Harry Dresden is clearly to assume an important role against the Outsiders.

If the Overview section is to be modified I'd like to reach some sort of conclusion about what to include - the Councils are very small a part of it.

MinorStoop (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Peace Talks/Book 16

I've got to admit, I'm slightly bemused as to why we cannot add information about Peace Talks based on the announcement on Jim-Butcher.com, as per the comment in the Bibliography section:

Please, do not add "Peace Talks" to this list, until there are enough independent sources worthy of use. This means, no author announcement, no publisher announcement, no Amazon listing. Thanks!

when speculation about the titles based of the final three books based on a 'hints' from Jim at a signing is allowed where there are no sources listed. If it is preferred that it is not appended to the table until we have full information, would anyone have a problem with a statement being tacked to the end of the section to the effect of:

An announcement on Jim-Butcher.com gives the working title of Book 16 as Peace Talks.

with http://www.jim-butcher.com/books/dresden/peace-talks-16 cited as the source?

Cheers,

UselessInfoMine (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the author is a good source for the title of books. However, it's a little too far in advance. While I understand that the circumstances are different, one example could be the first book. Anyone who was paying attention to Jim's activities online before the publishing of Storm Front would also consider that to be a reliable source for the title of his first novel being Semiautomagic. The fact is, things change. For all we know, some brand new author will publish a book also called Peace Talks next month which will sweep through the best seller lists, at which point the pressure will come down on Jim to change the title, so as not to confuse the two. So until the book is finished being written and a firm date for release is established, we should hold off. As likely as it may be, it's still speculation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable reference (a transcript of the talk on the book signing might be enough, but I'm probably not going to be able to judge it) supporting the fact that the Big Apocalyptic Trilogy announcement has been made could be enough to keep it. A google search I've made seems only to include a number of postings referencing each other, and I don't trust them. If we can't find something in a reasonable amount of time, we'll likely have to strike it down, I imagine. MinorStoop (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Try interviews on YouTube, where he repeatedly mentions 20+ case books plus the “big apocalyptic trilogy”. Iyoossaev (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

We're (or at least I am) aware of those. I watch videos of his talks regularly. The problem isn't that we have nothing to cite, it's as I mentioned above: things change. For all we know, some other publisher could release a novel called Peace Talks that storms the public consciousness the week before Roc starts printing Butcher's next book. Roc would almost certainly force a name change at the last minute due to that. So we wait until it's confirmed. My own opinion is that, once we have a cover set in stone, we can start mentioning it here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Hardcover Publish Date Storm Front

Hello. The page states "The series' first six novels were originally only published as paperbacks, but in 2007, ROC changed its strategy and began to publish hardcover reprints of books one to six."

Below that, the Bibliography section lists Book 1 as having a hardcover release date in November 6 2000. Looking on amazon https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Front-Dresden-Files-Book/dp/0451461975/ The hardcover has a release date of November 6 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.75.196 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The List of Characters is gone

There was a page called "Dresden Files characters", with dozens of characters, and it's simply gone.

Instead, on the main Dresden Files page, there's a section called Characters that has Harry, Bob, and Karrin... and no one else.

What happened?

If you're on the page for a given book, it shows "Introduced Characters" and then a link to "Dresden Files Characters"... which now brings you back here. Magnabonzo (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, all I can add here is that the change happened back in say 2008 and that the individual character pages like "Michael Carpenter" also redirect back to the main page. There were also a bunch of nice descriptions of varios DF groups like the Red Court that have also vanished from the main article. I supposed they could be recovered by picking all this out of the old versions of the article and putting them in the current one.Ploversegg (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the character list was draftified and then redirected last August as largely unreferenced and WP:OR.[1] The list of groups was PRODed in January, along with the article about the laws of magic. [2][3] I liked the articles as a fan of the series, but as an editor I can understand how they'd be seen as problematic. At this point all those redirect links should probably just be removed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The history of that page is weird. An editor who changed their name and retired initially moved it into draftspace, bizarrly citing WP:OR concerns without providing any justification and then redirected it to Jim Butcher, instead of redirecting it here. I intend to fix this. The books are sufficient reference for the characters in them (notability for the books is established already, so there aren't any WP:GNG issues, though WP:DUE certainly applies).

The page almost certainly needs to be trimmed down from the relatively exhaustive list it was, but the OR concerns expressed to justify the draftification simply don't make any sense. I've restored the page to the edit right before it was redirected, and I'll be working on it over the next few days. Any help would be appreciated. Draft:The Dresden Files characters for convenience. Happy (Slap me) 15:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, an impressively long and complex character list. Yeah, much shorter would make sense. Was the original description list of organizations also thrown into draft space? Hm, I wonder if all the other characters (besides Michael Carpenter) also have leftover redirects point to the main DF article.Ploversegg (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but that's definitely worth looking into. At the very least (with "least" meaning WP minimalism, or exclusionism) we should delete any redirects for characters who aren't described. I'd ask that anyone willing to help watchlist the draft page. I'm working on Molly Carpenter right now, trimming things down. Happy (Slap me) 15:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll watchlist that. Just in case people (like the OR) are curious I pulled the old DF GRoups text out of the article history and put them in draft space. WAY too long but still impressively complete. Draft:The Dresden Files Groups. Ploversegg (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth merging the two lists together. By the time I've got the characters draft trimmed down, there will be room for the groups in it. Happy (Slap me) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)