Novels: Twilight Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Children's literature Template‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
Women writers Template‑class | |||||||
|
Just a note about why I changed the template; due to the mass amount of merges at List of Twilight characters, it will be easier to use this template. The characters with articles will be displayed in one row, while a link to an entire character list is found, along with a link to the sections explaining vampires and shapeshitfers/werewolves. This also gets rid of the minor character bit, which was crowded and full of characters that really weren't that important. Anyone can change it back if they want to, but personally I think it's less busy and will be easier to navigate. WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop adding a reference to New Moon film. It is not a complete article, just a sub section. "Legolas" ( talk) 10:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Should we just remove the "other books" section and move " Midnight Sun (unpublished)" to the novels section? ς ح д r خ є 03:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Does this really work for the template? It looks a little awkward because there aren't that many articles for the other groups. This isn't like {{ Harry Potter}} where there are four links per column plus many, many other links in the template.
~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a small, fifth, still-blank column to be expanded and used for the projected finale of the series.-- 75.45.143.44 ( talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Even though film series' installments are released in separate years and merit distinct coverage in the media and respective reviews by the critics, they don't receive individual treatments on Wikipedia. No. Wait. Now that I've checked, it happens that in such cases as " The Lord of the Rings film trilogy," where multi-installment series have merited unified treatments, the separate films have merited individual treatments as well!
“The breaking up of “Breaking Dawn” follows other cinematic literary adaptations that have been divided into two films, including “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” (which will be released in two parts in 2010 and 2011) and “The Hobbit” (planned as two films for 2011 and 2012).”---- 11 June, NY TIMES
-- 75.45.143.44 ( talk) 20:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The Twilight portal (and its successor, Twilight (novel series)) were recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 09:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Novels: Twilight Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Children's literature Template‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
Women writers Template‑class | |||||||
|
Just a note about why I changed the template; due to the mass amount of merges at List of Twilight characters, it will be easier to use this template. The characters with articles will be displayed in one row, while a link to an entire character list is found, along with a link to the sections explaining vampires and shapeshitfers/werewolves. This also gets rid of the minor character bit, which was crowded and full of characters that really weren't that important. Anyone can change it back if they want to, but personally I think it's less busy and will be easier to navigate. WhiteArcticWolf ( talk) 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Stop adding a reference to New Moon film. It is not a complete article, just a sub section. "Legolas" ( talk) 10:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Should we just remove the "other books" section and move " Midnight Sun (unpublished)" to the novels section? ς ح д r خ є 03:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Does this really work for the template? It looks a little awkward because there aren't that many articles for the other groups. This isn't like {{ Harry Potter}} where there are four links per column plus many, many other links in the template.
~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a small, fifth, still-blank column to be expanded and used for the projected finale of the series.-- 75.45.143.44 ( talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Even though film series' installments are released in separate years and merit distinct coverage in the media and respective reviews by the critics, they don't receive individual treatments on Wikipedia. No. Wait. Now that I've checked, it happens that in such cases as " The Lord of the Rings film trilogy," where multi-installment series have merited unified treatments, the separate films have merited individual treatments as well!
“The breaking up of “Breaking Dawn” follows other cinematic literary adaptations that have been divided into two films, including “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” (which will be released in two parts in 2010 and 2011) and “The Hobbit” (planned as two films for 2011 and 2012).”---- 11 June, NY TIMES
-- 75.45.143.44 ( talk) 20:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The Twilight portal (and its successor, Twilight (novel series)) were recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 09:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)