Template talk:Edgar Allan Poe

message: Split into year? 1820's, 30's, etc? Make it easier to read nuk!!69.105.108.18 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...I will try to bring revision to attention68.123.226.197 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Could you add a section for Poe's essays? The Philosophy of Composition (1846) and Eureka (Edgar Allan Poe) (1848) are the only ones I'm aware of that have their own entries. Tjmayerinsf 09:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to bring this up again. "Essays" is a bit limiting. I'm strongly suggesting "Other works" or "Essays and other works." The one that particularly stands out is The Conchologist's First Book, which is a textbook - and I'm certainly not going to suggest a new section for "Textbooks" be added. If there's no discussion, I'm going to go ahead and make the change. While I'm at it, I'll add The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (a novel) to the new section. Midnightdreary 04:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I've gone ahead and updated it a bit. It's not perfect, but it seems to be a bit more inclusive. Feel free to revert it if it's no good. Midnightdreary 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add section on Essays

message: :Well I've gone ahead and updated it a bit. It's not perfect, but it seems to be a bit more inclusive. Feel free to revert it if it's no good. Midnightdreary 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Done

message: The Divine Right of Kings is listed with Poe as author - see the source in the external links section. Should this be added to the template? -Midnightdreary 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poem of Disputed Origin?

message: I found three vandalisms in the Edgar Allan Poe template box.  If these vandalisms are so rampant in this particular box, maybe we should lock it somehow. Not like he will be producing any more works that we need to add to it any time soon. -JoshP 11:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he probably won't be publishing anything new, but we may be adding new articles on some of these works. But everything Poe-related tends to get vandalized pretty heavily. I'm not sure if protection on this particular article would matter much. But, I can understand the reasoning, so I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it. Midnightdreary 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean locking down any of the articles, they can stay open.  I just meant we could semi-protect the template box or something.  I don't know how to do so, so I'll leave it up to anyone who cares. JoshP 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, now that I've seen some additional vandalism, I might agree with JoshP about semi-protecting. I can't get over how many 7th graders like to add "COCKS" and "ANAL" or some kind of gay joke to Poe pages. Midnightdreary 19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, for some reason, they just see it as funny.  I don't know why they choose Edgar Allan Poe though...But go ahead and do whatever you like.  I really don't have any idea how to do anything beyond the basics. JoshP 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-Up of Box

message: Lots of the titles are redlinks, while around equally as many are left unlinked. Is there a particular reason for this, or for the sake of consistency shouldn't all the uncreated titles be red-linked or unlinked? •97198 talk 01:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point... I think people on occasion randomly try to wikify the titles without looking first to see if there are articles. I'd support removing the redlinks entirely. What are your thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks or no links? 

message: I'm not necessarily a fan of the auto-hide feature on all of these sections but, to me, it makes sense as all or nothing (i.e. if one is hidden, they should all be). Having a default of, say, "Tales" does not make sense for any of the articles on Poe's poems. Nor would it make much sense to have the "Poems" open on an article on Poe's tales. Can we either leave as is or open them all back up by default? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding autohide 

message: hello and good thoughts to you! It's been a long time, and I've missed our discussions about Poe and his works. I recently added several navbars to my user page and found this one to be non-standard in terms of its header, "Edgar Allan Poe (works)", where "works" linked to his Bib. I have transferred his Bib to the Below Above section to standardize his navbar. I hope you are okay with this, and thank you for your counsel and your many wonderful edits to this encyclopedia!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work on this! Thank you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Always a pleasure, and thanks again!  Paine  00:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template header 

message: Hello! I'm not sure I agree with the recent addition of a subsection on "Portrayals". For one thing, there are various lists, particularly Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, that already have this covered and to be fully inclusive would make for a massive subsection. More importantly, the template was built originally as a way to navigate through articles on Poe's works -- hence the term "Bibliography" right at the top. Portrayals seem outside of that scope (as do some other subsections, to be honest). Thoughts? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayals