Template talk:Orson Scott Card

Novels only currently

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok I have the tools I'll do the work. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pmcalduff 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comics

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)[reply]

This template is way too big as it is. Besides if I include Iron Man I would have to include Card's other comic book series. And then there is his nonfiction, his writing books, his plays etc. A line has to be drawn somewhere.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

I see that all of the information was combined, but this makes for a very large navbox. Very unnavigatable. Maybe its just me, but I kept clicking the wrong section when trying to look for specific information. This navbox isn't good for potential readers who do not have a general understanding of OSC and his works. An example is a reader who read the first in the Alvin Maker series and wants to learn more about it would have to navigate the box trying to make heads or tails of thing. I would actually support breaking up the navbox as it currently is. But, that's just my two cents. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. The only change to the Alvin Maker sections that I made was the addition of the "Short stories Comics MMORPG" information from the template. Even if you break the page apart, the Alvin Maker books are going to have to be listed, meaning that you only gain one line.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I better separate them by color. The changes I made only added 6 lines to the entire template. Since the is "Works by Card" even if you didn't merge them, the information is valid as it is.All your going to do is have Two templates with the almost the same info.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The color change helps, but it is still very large. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template seems overly large, both for the Works Of template as well as the Ender's Series template. Were it something I was more passionate about, I'd turn The Ender's Series template into a simpler one à la Alvin Maker one. Every concept and character is not essential for a navbox, as that's what the article is for. I'm more for the decentralisation of templates (even a characters template would be broken out in my view). As a minimalist in this sense, I think the "Works Of" would contain the general series titles in it, like Template:OrsonScottCardSeries. Once in the specific series, the more specific templates would show.

If only he didn't write so much! ;^) ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought I just had, why cannot we have multiple smaller navboxes, one for AlvinMaker, Ender, etc and have them nested in the larger one, so if people are interested in seeing even more, then they can open the other navboxes? Would that potentially be a fair compromise? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles de Flandres in battle school

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)[reply]

Actually, Achilles de Flandres appeared in 'Ender's Shadow' when Bean becomes the commander of his own army. I don't have the book right in front of me right now or I would give you the chapter. Bean and 5 members of his army trick Achilles into admitting his role in the murder of Sister Carlotta, Poke and the unnamed doctor who fixed his leg.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive tidy-up

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can't find any at the moment, but I've seen navboxes composed of collapsible sections in such a way that only the relevant section is visible by default on each transcluded article. In other words, the Ender's Game section would be visible by default on all Ender-related pages, but the viewer would have to click to open the Alvin Maker or Other Works sections. Might that be a good approach here? (I see no need to keep the opening line no matter what we do, since it's repeated in a more navigationally useful way lower down.) —Flax5 14:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean:

*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.

--Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. My only problem with breaking templates down into subsections is that it means that viewer has to actively click every time they want to reveal the links to the related articles, which seems counter to how wikis work. I think this way both solves that and mitigates the space issue. —Flax5 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed about the top bar. Have removed in this version. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

image may acutally be used

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)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Images in navboxes where we discussed the use of images in navboxes. Definitely consensus for NOT including an image in a navbox with collapsible sections. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it makes a massive difference to the size of the box, as it adds 20% to the width of it. And, why do we need to see his smiling face at the bottom of every page? That definitely is NOT an improvement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NO Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Images in navboxes dosn't say that at all. Over and over again it say "it is on a case by case basis'". In this case the image make a big difference to the box. Second I totally disagree with you 20% guess. I see no difference in the size of the box as the collapsed sections are the exact same size as the image. Just because you personally don't like image doesn't make them inappropriate. It they were there would be no Image Options. This image has been part of this box for a very very long time and I will put it back until a consensus is reached on this "CASE".--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion, particularly with regard to {{Martin Luther King}} (a very similar situation), you will see that it is unanimous that the removal of the picture was A Good Thing for navboxes with collapsible sections. Also, just because you see no difference does not mean that others won't. What we have here is a massive navbox, and there's absolutely no benefit in making it bigger by adding a picture that provides no navigational value. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Images in navboxes is far from "unanimous". You need to read it as it your claims of "unanimous" is far from true. Over and over again things like "it is on a case by case basis" and "There is no hard and fast rule against using image" is said by a number of editor. Your choosing to make up your own rules here.

This image make a big difference to this navbox. It is appropriate and without it the navbox suffer. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the image should stay until a consensus is reached. Instead you have ignored BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and made up some rule against image because you don't like them and removed it without discussion. The image is appropriate and the consensus up until now is that is should stay unless it is changed by discussion.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 15:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying unanimous with regard to images in navboxes full stop, but with regard specifically to navboxes with collapsible sections. And it seems that whenever anyone has tried to remove the image in the past, you've just added it back again. I wouldn't call that consensus. The image is not appropriate in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been on this page since 2012. It adds alot to this box. Twice in that time two drive by editor removed it and yes I put it back per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I asked them to discuss it, the simply disappeared. This is how Wikipedia works. Your argument against the image is that other boxes have decided not to use an image. This goes against it being on a case by case basis. The image has been valuable enough to be included for 3 years, why would it no be now that you decided it wasn't. If the editors of this page agree that the image is of no use, fine, remove it, but just because you don't like images in general is not a good reason to remove an image that makes a big improvement in the box. It should stay until a consensus to remove it is reached per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claim it "adds alot to this box" but you don't state what it is that the image adds. I mean, it adds size, confusion and clutter, but nothing of navigational value. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image has always been the exact same size as the collapse bars. Therefore it add nothing to the size, if you bothered to look. When the box is collapsed all it dose is shorten the collapsed boxes by the width of the window. How dose that make it bigger and more cluttered???? This box is about the works of OSC and goes on the pages of these books. Without the image, then each and every page has to add an image of OSC to page and debate its' use. WHY when this box can be appropriately used to add the image? It isn't about "navigation" it's about improving the the USE of this navbox. So in this case the image appropriate.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to cut down a massively sprawling navbox to something approaching serviceable, without losing any of its navigation function. In order to make it that little more compact, the photo needed to be excised, otherwise it's still a mess. And why on earth would "each and every page" want a picture of the author on it anyway? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Card's full name is already present, in large bold lettering, at the top of the template, with a link to his article. What does a photograph achieve that this doesn't? —Flax5 16:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A picture is worth a thousand words, Adding the image adds alot to the navbox. A name is nothing compared to an image.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a navbox, not an infobox. The image adds nothing to aid navigation, and by making a massive navbox even bigger, an image actually hinders navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it has now been removed by three editors recently, all with the same rationale. That's something toward a consensus for it not to be included. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Some suggestion for the navbox itself, and the use of it:

Subgroups
- creating some order/classification for the novels (books) in the section Ender's Game
- already mentioned in Template_talk:Ender's_Game#Subgroups
  - where there's already 1 subgroup created by Ollieinc
  - called Related (with only one book in it)
- (extra) subgroups (for each series):
  1. The original Ender saga
  2. The parallel Shadow Saga
  3. The prequel Formic Wars
  4. Garbage subgroup (Related/Other/Collections): Essay collection, Short story collection(s), ...
- see below for an example
Template:Ender's_Game:
- having two similar navboxes at the bottom of the same page is redundant (and has no real value)
- see on pages for Ender's_Game_(series)
- but (imho) having (and keeping) both navboxes does has value, and in such a way that :
  1. for general (Orson Scott Card related) pages, the general (Orson Scott Card) template can be used (with enderstate=uncollapsed for Ender related pages, see next improvement)
  2. and for specific (Ender related) pages (like charachters, planets, ...), the specific (Ender) template can be used
Uncollapse relevant section:
- as already mentioned earlier by Flax5, this navbox is composed of several collapsible sections in such a way that it's possible that only the relevant section is visible by default on each transcluded article
- @Flax5: and @Robsinden: this set-up doesn't work for some reason:
  - because of the difference uppercase/lowercase?
  - ie. the template stipulates lowercase
  - while uppercase is used (incorrectly) for inclusion within pages
- maybe there is a rule to not have an uncollapsed navbox (or in this case, a sub-navbox)?

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)[reply]

Further tidy-up suggestions

Apart from the subgroups for the Ender Series, it might be useful to split the section Other works

into Other series
and 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)[reply]