![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
When editing this template, please note that it is not meant to link to every article related to
The Chronicles of Narnia. It links directly to the various Narnia categories and lists to allow access to every article. It is meant to link to only the most important articles within the respective categories.
LloydSommerer
02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are the novels listed in publication date instead of chronological date?
The author preferred chronological
[1] and the current publications are in chronological order (and have been for a good deal of time). --
71.94.78.226 (
talk)
02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There is 1 more template of Narnia.{{Template:Narnia characters}}.Should we merge the contents of that article to this template?.-- SkyWalker ( talk) 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a number of changes to the template, and rather than list them in the edit summary, I thought I would put them here so that they can be discussed:
There are probably others that I've forgotten. I agree with some other editors who don't like the new format with the books listed across the top, but there seem to be a roughly equal number who like it as who dislike it. LloydSommerer ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
user:JDJ39 added Lilliandil to the list of main characters. I reverted this, but on reflection have reinstated it. She is not, of course, a main character in the books, but the template covers the films as well, and she undoubtedly will become a main character in the films. Adding her as "Lilliandil" rather than as "Ramandu's Daughter" makes sense too, since as a main character she will become known by the former rather than the latter. -- Elphion ( talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that there has been a few edit conflict on how to format this template. I have purposed that any changes on how to format this template should be discussed here unless there's a task force on Narnia, then a discussion can go there. − Jhenderson 777 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's one old look that some editors have approved while others didn't. You may vote for it if you prefer it.
Version as of 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This version is OK. It's fairly compact and easy to navigate. In particular, there's not gobs of empty space around "TV series -- Film -- Game" between the book titles and the rest of the template. I don't really care too much about what links are there => as long as they're not visually distracting, so that the template is easy for the eye to take in. So it's important, e.g., that the horizontal sweep across the rows be consistent and not broken up so that the eye trips at each column.
I would also suggest that someone who cares about the movies and the TV series edit the general articles for those so that they give the reader easy, obvious links to the individual installments and so that they provide overviews of the films, rather than (e.g.) rehash all the minor plot points. The current movie article in particular is a real mishmash.
Also: would it make sense to add "BBC" to the second TV series?
-- Elphion ( talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Version as of 13:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The current state of the template is why the second example in this section is not sustainable. There is no useful criteria for what should and what should not appear in those upper boxes. Just wait until people start writing articles about stage adaptations, and we have to include those as well. LloydSommerer ( talk) 03:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Template: Narnia places is not in the Narnia templates cat and does not carry the project banner. It is nearly redundant and seems to be deprecated. Boldly I have deleted it from the two articles where it was in use (Anvard, Archenland). Now, like Template: Narnia characters, it does not appear in article space. Maybe they should be deleted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force? -- P64 ( talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I have been poking around to see how you all have approached a few matters, a couple days after revising The Foundling and Other Tales of Prydain and then observing the shabby of other matters Prydain (a fictional land) ...
One matter to approach is redirects. I suppose that many of them have replaced stub articles on minor characters, places, etc. By policy do you include some redirects in Categories, in the Navbox, or both?
Reading further, I see that WP: Redirect discourages redirects in categories but the main discussion shows some examples that provide a valuable perspective on lists of characters. Example: Category:Middle-earth horses, all redirects. -- P64 ( talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
When editing this template, please note that it is not meant to link to every article related to
The Chronicles of Narnia. It links directly to the various Narnia categories and lists to allow access to every article. It is meant to link to only the most important articles within the respective categories.
LloydSommerer
02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are the novels listed in publication date instead of chronological date?
The author preferred chronological
[1] and the current publications are in chronological order (and have been for a good deal of time). --
71.94.78.226 (
talk)
02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There is 1 more template of Narnia.{{Template:Narnia characters}}.Should we merge the contents of that article to this template?.-- SkyWalker ( talk) 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I made a number of changes to the template, and rather than list them in the edit summary, I thought I would put them here so that they can be discussed:
There are probably others that I've forgotten. I agree with some other editors who don't like the new format with the books listed across the top, but there seem to be a roughly equal number who like it as who dislike it. LloydSommerer ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
user:JDJ39 added Lilliandil to the list of main characters. I reverted this, but on reflection have reinstated it. She is not, of course, a main character in the books, but the template covers the films as well, and she undoubtedly will become a main character in the films. Adding her as "Lilliandil" rather than as "Ramandu's Daughter" makes sense too, since as a main character she will become known by the former rather than the latter. -- Elphion ( talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that there has been a few edit conflict on how to format this template. I have purposed that any changes on how to format this template should be discussed here unless there's a task force on Narnia, then a discussion can go there. − Jhenderson 777 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's one old look that some editors have approved while others didn't. You may vote for it if you prefer it.
Version as of 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This version is OK. It's fairly compact and easy to navigate. In particular, there's not gobs of empty space around "TV series -- Film -- Game" between the book titles and the rest of the template. I don't really care too much about what links are there => as long as they're not visually distracting, so that the template is easy for the eye to take in. So it's important, e.g., that the horizontal sweep across the rows be consistent and not broken up so that the eye trips at each column.
I would also suggest that someone who cares about the movies and the TV series edit the general articles for those so that they give the reader easy, obvious links to the individual installments and so that they provide overviews of the films, rather than (e.g.) rehash all the minor plot points. The current movie article in particular is a real mishmash.
Also: would it make sense to add "BBC" to the second TV series?
-- Elphion ( talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Version as of 13:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The current state of the template is why the second example in this section is not sustainable. There is no useful criteria for what should and what should not appear in those upper boxes. Just wait until people start writing articles about stage adaptations, and we have to include those as well. LloydSommerer ( talk) 03:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Template: Narnia places is not in the Narnia templates cat and does not carry the project banner. It is nearly redundant and seems to be deprecated. Boldly I have deleted it from the two articles where it was in use (Anvard, Archenland). Now, like Template: Narnia characters, it does not appear in article space. Maybe they should be deleted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force? -- P64 ( talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I have been poking around to see how you all have approached a few matters, a couple days after revising The Foundling and Other Tales of Prydain and then observing the shabby of other matters Prydain (a fictional land) ...
One matter to approach is redirects. I suppose that many of them have replaced stub articles on minor characters, places, etc. By policy do you include some redirects in Categories, in the Navbox, or both?
Reading further, I see that WP: Redirect discourages redirects in categories but the main discussion shows some examples that provide a valuable perspective on lists of characters. Example: Category:Middle-earth horses, all redirects. -- P64 ( talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)