Template talk:Sherwood Smith

This template 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

Women writers

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles

Does it seem ugly to have the word "series" after the Sartoran protagonists' names? I felt like there should be something to clarify that their books represent sets of sequels, while Other is refering to stand-alone books as Jennifu pointed out. —AltiusBimm 17:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me! I think I may take off the links from "Meliara" and "Inda", though. I'm not quite sure they are notable enough to deserve their own article, and the bold red links aren't that appealing. What do you think? Jennifu 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that bold red links (and red links in general) are a good reminder to wikipedians that the articles need to be created, and considering that Meliara and Inda are protagonists of their respective series, why would they not receive articles when Wren does? —AltiusBimm 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the protagonist names in the series names are exactly the sort of thing I would, as a reader, wonder "Who's that?" and want to click on the name, if I didn't already know who the characters were. —AltiusBimm 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think red links are good reminders that the pages need to be created. However, Meliara, Inda, and even Wren are not really notable. They can really be described within the book pages. (I know I'm the one who created the Wren page, but thinking about it now, I don't think the character is notable enough for her own page.) Just because a reader might want to know about it (and just because similar pages are created for other characters) does not mean these characters should have their own page. If you want to be able to click on the name, maybe have the link point to a section on one of the book pages? Jennifu 16:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, how silly of me! My POV clouded my thinking. The usual way to develop articles on Wikipedia for characters or other elements of a work of fiction is to start them as sections of the main article and once enough information is accumulated, to split them into separate articles. —AltiusBimm 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on the charaters having their own articles was partly based on the knowledge that a character such as Wren, spanning multiple books, exists as a somewhat separate concept from a particular book, and a reader may wish to study her in terms of her overall life experiences, rather than on a per-book basis. —AltiusBimm 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that readers may want to do this; in fact, it's why I created Wren's article in the first place. However, this isn't really the place for reader's guide type things. As you said, we can start defining the characters on the book pages, and if there's enough information, we can split them into separate articles (as long as they're notable and there's outside references). By the way, if you want to contribute to more in-depth analysis of Crown Duel, etc., the new Sartorias-deles Wiki would probably be a more appropriate place (and it sure could use more editors!) Wren's world info isn't really included over there yet, though it may be in the future. Jennifu 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Meliara have a longer full name? —AltiusBimm 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]