Novels Template‑class | |||||||
|
as I understand it these are only his Novels. If we want to good beyond Novels the template should be renamed to deal with all his "Works". Something like {{ OrsonScottCard}} as many other similar or {{ Orson Scott Card works}}. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. When I started the template it was just for his novels. However as I began working on Card’s short story collections I decided to add them. I was tempted to use the “move” tab to change the name but since I put the template on the bottom of every novel, short story collection and short story Card wrote it would take me hours to change all the {{ Novels by Orson Scott Card}} tags to {{ Books by Orson Scott Card}}. Pmcalduff 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Pmcalduff 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Orson Scott Card is the writer for two prominent comic series, Ultimate Iron Man and its sequel, Ultimate Iron Man Volume 2. Should these be included in the template, since they are his works? I know the template is busy as it is, and I'm not sure if these would go into standalone works or their own category, but I think that they should be included, if possible. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the following templates can (and should) be merged into Template:Orson Scott Card
After some work Template:Orson Scott Card now has the same information as those other ones. Additionally Template:Orson Scott Card has the option of expanding the Ender's and Alvin Maker sections, so that all the information is "expanded when appropriate. Since all the books using these templates should have Template:Orson Scott Card on it, it only makes since to combine all three.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Achilles de Flandres is a character that never makes an appearance at the Battle School setting in either 'Ender's Game' or 'Ender's Shadow' - the only books that treat the Battle School satellite station as a school. It then logically follows that his location in the specific character roster of those who appear at Battle School is incorrect despite his later relations with the listed characters in 'Shadow of the Hegemon' and 'Shadow of the Giant'. Underpaidman ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This navbox was a mess, full of duplicate links and redirects which made an already over-large navbox even larger. The characters and comics sections for Ender's Game were especially ridiculous, given that they all pointed to a single article. I've managed to pare down the navbox, removing as many of these duplicate links and redirects as possible. The image was completely unnecessary too, again pointlessly increasing the size, which I see had already been removed by users User:Harizotoh9 and User:Flax5, only to be reverted. I think I've got it down to something more manageable, but I wonder if it can't be trimmed a bit further. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure we need the collapsible sections. The series at the top are repeated down the sides anyway. What about this version? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
*Use {{Orson Scott Card |enderstate=expanded}} to show the Ender's Game Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |alvinstate=expanded}} to show the Alvin Maker Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |otherstate=expanded}} to show the other work in thier expanded (fully visible) state.
I have read over again over again the justification for removal of the image. First it make a big improvement of the box so it's appropriate, or it would have never been there in the first place. Second per all the cited comments, it is on a case by case basis, so there is no general consensus that image cannot be used. Third, it make absolutely no difference int he size of the box, something that keeps getting claimed. This image belongs as it has always been here and is appropriate.--- ARTEST4ECHO( Talk) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If you bothered to look the image is still the size of the collapsed bars. Even if it wasn’t, why not just make it a little smaller, so the image would still only shorten the length (width) of the collapsed boxes, instead of removing it. When expanded the box is the exact same length with or without the image, just like before. Therefore the image would still add nothing the "Size". As for "Clutter" and “Mess” this is just your opinion. I say it isn’t “Clutter", “Mess” or “Confusing” to add an image on the subject of the navbox as it adds “Value” and appropriate “information” to the Navbox.
There is no consensus on the option that image cause "Clutter" and “Mess” or the Navbox template wouldn’t even offer images as a choice. Images are to be used on a ‘’’Case by Case basis’’’ and there is no ‘’’hard and fast rule’’’ against them. If there was, why is there no Wikipedia policy against their used, is putting an image in the box even a option, and there is only a discussion on the subject on a different box that has nothing to do with this page.
Nothing you have said changes the fact that the image has been on this page since 2012 and has been considered useful and valuable since then, or it would have been remove long long ago by those who edit the page for content, not “drive by editors” who are stuck on enforcing a “No Image” rule that doesn’t exist.
The image has never been about navigational value, it's about improving the use of the box. Navboxes are also about adding standardized information on many pages. If you want to add navigational value, make the image link to OSC. OSC image adds VALUE and USEFULNESS to the Navbox, adds information on the Books Author to the navbox, and adds value to the pages it’s used on.
If you bothered to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and cared about the Navbox, instead of just hating image, you would have left the image in place until a consensus to change it is in place. That is what I asked for, discussion, so, per BRD, the image should stay unless a consensus to remove the image is reached by more then drive by editors who don’t really care about the page. The discussion should if there is still value to having the image here, not a “No Image” rule that they cannot even get an official Wikipedia policy on. ‘’The image should stay’’ unless a consensus to remove it ON THIS PAGE as it has no value here is reached.--- ARTEST4ECHO( Talk) 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Some suggestion for the navbox itself, and the use of it:
Info on the use of expanded parts (in a composed navbox): (as pointed out by Robsinden)
*Use {{Orson Scott Card |enderstate=expanded}} to show the Ender's Game Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |alvinstate=expanded}} to show the Alvin Maker Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |otherstate=expanded}} to show the other work in their expanded (fully visible) state.
Proposition for the subgroups:
Clockworkske ( talk) 11:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the subgroups for the Ender Series, it might be useful to split the section Other works
Also, within the navbox Other works, there is a section Other works, which doesn't look encyclopedic (professional) to me. Clockworkske ( talk) 11:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Novels Template‑class | |||||||
|
as I understand it these are only his Novels. If we want to good beyond Novels the template should be renamed to deal with all his "Works". Something like {{ OrsonScottCard}} as many other similar or {{ Orson Scott Card works}}. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. When I started the template it was just for his novels. However as I began working on Card’s short story collections I decided to add them. I was tempted to use the “move” tab to change the name but since I put the template on the bottom of every novel, short story collection and short story Card wrote it would take me hours to change all the {{ Novels by Orson Scott Card}} tags to {{ Books by Orson Scott Card}}. Pmcalduff 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Pmcalduff 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Orson Scott Card is the writer for two prominent comic series, Ultimate Iron Man and its sequel, Ultimate Iron Man Volume 2. Should these be included in the template, since they are his works? I know the template is busy as it is, and I'm not sure if these would go into standalone works or their own category, but I think that they should be included, if possible. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the following templates can (and should) be merged into Template:Orson Scott Card
After some work Template:Orson Scott Card now has the same information as those other ones. Additionally Template:Orson Scott Card has the option of expanding the Ender's and Alvin Maker sections, so that all the information is "expanded when appropriate. Since all the books using these templates should have Template:Orson Scott Card on it, it only makes since to combine all three.-- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk/ contribs) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Achilles de Flandres is a character that never makes an appearance at the Battle School setting in either 'Ender's Game' or 'Ender's Shadow' - the only books that treat the Battle School satellite station as a school. It then logically follows that his location in the specific character roster of those who appear at Battle School is incorrect despite his later relations with the listed characters in 'Shadow of the Hegemon' and 'Shadow of the Giant'. Underpaidman ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This navbox was a mess, full of duplicate links and redirects which made an already over-large navbox even larger. The characters and comics sections for Ender's Game were especially ridiculous, given that they all pointed to a single article. I've managed to pare down the navbox, removing as many of these duplicate links and redirects as possible. The image was completely unnecessary too, again pointlessly increasing the size, which I see had already been removed by users User:Harizotoh9 and User:Flax5, only to be reverted. I think I've got it down to something more manageable, but I wonder if it can't be trimmed a bit further. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 10:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure we need the collapsible sections. The series at the top are repeated down the sides anyway. What about this version? -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
*Use {{Orson Scott Card |enderstate=expanded}} to show the Ender's Game Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |alvinstate=expanded}} to show the Alvin Maker Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |otherstate=expanded}} to show the other work in thier expanded (fully visible) state.
I have read over again over again the justification for removal of the image. First it make a big improvement of the box so it's appropriate, or it would have never been there in the first place. Second per all the cited comments, it is on a case by case basis, so there is no general consensus that image cannot be used. Third, it make absolutely no difference int he size of the box, something that keeps getting claimed. This image belongs as it has always been here and is appropriate.--- ARTEST4ECHO( Talk) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
If you bothered to look the image is still the size of the collapsed bars. Even if it wasn’t, why not just make it a little smaller, so the image would still only shorten the length (width) of the collapsed boxes, instead of removing it. When expanded the box is the exact same length with or without the image, just like before. Therefore the image would still add nothing the "Size". As for "Clutter" and “Mess” this is just your opinion. I say it isn’t “Clutter", “Mess” or “Confusing” to add an image on the subject of the navbox as it adds “Value” and appropriate “information” to the Navbox.
There is no consensus on the option that image cause "Clutter" and “Mess” or the Navbox template wouldn’t even offer images as a choice. Images are to be used on a ‘’’Case by Case basis’’’ and there is no ‘’’hard and fast rule’’’ against them. If there was, why is there no Wikipedia policy against their used, is putting an image in the box even a option, and there is only a discussion on the subject on a different box that has nothing to do with this page.
Nothing you have said changes the fact that the image has been on this page since 2012 and has been considered useful and valuable since then, or it would have been remove long long ago by those who edit the page for content, not “drive by editors” who are stuck on enforcing a “No Image” rule that doesn’t exist.
The image has never been about navigational value, it's about improving the use of the box. Navboxes are also about adding standardized information on many pages. If you want to add navigational value, make the image link to OSC. OSC image adds VALUE and USEFULNESS to the Navbox, adds information on the Books Author to the navbox, and adds value to the pages it’s used on.
If you bothered to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and cared about the Navbox, instead of just hating image, you would have left the image in place until a consensus to change it is in place. That is what I asked for, discussion, so, per BRD, the image should stay unless a consensus to remove the image is reached by more then drive by editors who don’t really care about the page. The discussion should if there is still value to having the image here, not a “No Image” rule that they cannot even get an official Wikipedia policy on. ‘’The image should stay’’ unless a consensus to remove it ON THIS PAGE as it has no value here is reached.--- ARTEST4ECHO( Talk) 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Some suggestion for the navbox itself, and the use of it:
Info on the use of expanded parts (in a composed navbox): (as pointed out by Robsinden)
*Use {{Orson Scott Card |enderstate=expanded}} to show the Ender's Game Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |alvinstate=expanded}} to show the Alvin Maker Saga template in its expanded (fully visible) state. *Use {{Orson Scott Card |otherstate=expanded}} to show the other work in their expanded (fully visible) state.
Proposition for the subgroups:
Clockworkske ( talk) 11:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the subgroups for the Ender Series, it might be useful to split the section Other works
Also, within the navbox Other works, there is a section Other works, which doesn't look encyclopedic (professional) to me. Clockworkske ( talk) 11:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)