Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Narnia This page is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles This page is supported by Chronicles of Narnia task force.

Archives

Complete Archive to March 2008.

Now that this project is a task force of the Novels WikiProject, I've developed a userbox for the task force, in line with the other task forces on the WikiProject:

The code for it is quite long, but it is also consistent with the other task forces:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/User Chronicles of Narnia task force}}

Since this task force already has a userbox, the task force should decide whether it wants another one, but this one is consistent with the other Novels task forces. In any event, feel free to use, modify or delete the userbox however you wish, and also to add it to the task force page. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd bring this to the attention of this project, since I think it's something that affects most folks here, the setting of a baseline of notability for fictional characters: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Proposing WP:FICT for global acceptance (viz, for example, most of the linked articles on List of characters in The Chronicles of Narnia). Feel free to comment. Ford MF (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The featured list Narnian timeline has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Narnia is currently a redirect to Narnia (world), which is contrary to Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If the world is the primary meaning of "Narnia", then Narnia is also the best title for that article, so Narnia (world) should be moved to Narnia. If it's not the primary meaning, then Narnia is the best title for the disambiguation page, so Narnia (disambiguation) should be moved to Narnia instead. I have no opinion either way, I just don't like that it's a redirect when it doesn't have to be. —JAO • T • C 10:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion regarding how the scope of this task force might expand a little at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum#Possible expansion of Narnia task force, and make any comments you wish there regarding the proposal. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Narnia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hundred-Year Winter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Hundred-Year Winter – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature.

See discussion for Category:The Chronicles of Narnia stubs Dawynn (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy - just posted a request for Copy Edit here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#The Chronicles of Narnia. Just thought I'd cross-post this to the Taskforce in case anyone was interested in taking this up, or if you may know someone else who is. Thanks! -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I see no reference to the original movies which I saw in 1996? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.129.132 (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moments ago at Lion witch wardrobe I deleted two fields of nuisance data, original title and translator. These have been displayed during some time (I checked only 30 April 2012) while some vandalisms have been reverted.

Before concluding that change, I checked {{infobox book}} data for the six other books.

1. LB also displays stray original title and translator data.
2. Only LWW credits Pauline Baynes as both cover artist and illustrator. If that double listing seems objectionably repetitive, I suggest that the image captions be revised to name Baynes, at least by inserting her surname at the head, such as "Baynes cover of 1950 first edition (hardcover)" --to illustrate, but I don't like redundant 1950 and (hardcover). Since she is named in full just below, as (interior) illustrator, that may be adequate.
3. LWW has parenthetically noted that the page count and ISBN are "(modern hardcover)". I have added the original page count and improved the annotation by reference to ISFDB, which is one LWW External link. The other books do not annotate page count or ISBN. There are variations in what data we provide (HB and MN are the two extremes). One judgment about the degree of detail should fit all.

--P64 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I have revised all seven book articles. Among other things, {{infobox book}} is now essentially complete. And complete uniformly. For merely two examples, it provides the first edition page count and the 1998 full-colour edition ISBN (and so noted).

At the same time I have made the articles more consistent in other respects too. --P64 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be vacillating about whether a section listing the chapter titles should be included. Currently there is such a section in LWW, VDT, and MN, but not in the other four book articles. Is there a definitive sentiment one way or the other? -- Elphion (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six months later our VDT alone retains that (section 2). The Plot summary (sec 1) does not refer to particular chapters. The following Differences between editions (sec 3) refers to the first and twelfth chapters, not enough to recommend the chapters list for reference.

For The Hobbit we provide a wealth of bibliographic data (Early American editions of The Hobbit, English-language editions of The Hobbit) but do not identify chapter titles. --P64 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This note prescribing one reliable source WP:RS for the dual plague of original research WP:OR and glaring gaps in scope was drafted at Talk: The Silver Chair last hour, where I finally posted a short version.

One source for The Chronicles of Narnia is sure to be immensely useful for articles on Narnia books, characters, peoples, places.

• Ford, Paul (2005). Companion to Narnia. Revised Edition. San Francisco: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-079127-8. (another reference identifies 2005 as the fifth edition)

The Companion is an alphabetically ordered enyclopedia with thousands of entries.

One recurring theme on the talk pages of Narnia book articles is proscribed original research WP:OR by editors on the one hand, glaring gaps in substance on the other hand. Why do the articles no say more about Christian themes, Sexism, or whatever? Probably the article once included such coverage but it was removed as such content has been removed as OR. (Most remarkably, The Last Battle is only 10,000 bytes and carries the {{all plot}} tag.)

Skimming this |Talk: The Silver Chair| today, from reading the Companion this winter I recall entries that pertain to sections 1, 3-4, 7, and 9. That is, not merely entries for Parliament or Owls, Christianity, Green witch or White witch or Jadis, etc, but entries that pertain in some details mentioned here.

The Companion includes a complete account of differences between the original British and American editions --where the universal worldwide edition from 1998(?) matches the British even where that means undoing substantial and purposeful revision by Lewis.

It identifies inconsistencies and explains many of them by reference to the unplanned nature of the whole. Apparently Lewis wrote VDT to complete a trilogy. Certainly he wrote the first five books without plotting the opening and closing of Narnia --thousands of years earlier in MN, hundreds of years later in LB. He planned to revise the whole series at least partly for consistency but did not live to do the revised edition.

Much of the Companion may be called "speculation" that is prohibited here when wikipedia editors are the source (WP:OR) but it may be covered in these articles and attributed to Ford or to his sources when appropriate. (There are many notes identifying specific academic and/or christian secondary sources and specific letters to or from Lewis.)

--P64 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cair Paravel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of real-world significance, no sources after being tagged for well over a year. Delete or merge to an appropriate parent article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonIago (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]