Talk:Swallows and Amazons series

message: I replaced my removed paragraph. If you want to rewrite it, do so, but don't just remove useful information. Varitek 04:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They meet on a fictional lake
I was always led to believe it was Windermere. Isn't it? 66.92.237.111 05:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Windermere was the model, but it's never explicity stated. Mackensen (talk) 05:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lake is fictional, combining elements of Windermere, Coniston Water (most obviously Wild Cat Island is Piel Island, but others too), and Ransome's imagination: even those elements based on real places are sometimes modified for fictional purposes, the entrance to the secret harbour being rather easy in reality (though no less exciting to visit) . StephenDawson 07:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (old)

message: I have created a template called Template:SwallowsandAmazonsbooks which looks like this;
This can be put at the bottom of each page about the individual books.  I have also used it on the page for Peter Duck which I started. 
Also, should this page be split into 'Swallows and Amazons (novel)' and 'Swallows and Amazons (series)'?
JP Godfrey 16:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of a wiki-way for that, but then, I can't think of another series that is know by the name of one of its units, so to speak. Personally, I think making a disambiguation page is silly, since the phrase is used only for two extremely related things - I would vote to use Swallows and Amazons for an article about the series, and Swallows and Amazons (novel) (not book) for the book. - DavidWBrooks 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only series that's named after a part of it that I can think of is Star Wars.  This page is about the series, but with a link to a disambiguation page at the top of the page.  I think the disambiguation page is only used because it also links to the Strategic Defense Initiative. A New Hope is also mentioned and linked to in the opening paragraph. JP Godfrey 09:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How about going with Bob's idea in having Swallows and Amazons about the book, but with a disambiguation notice at the top of the page redirecting to Swallows and Amazons (series)? JP Godfrey 22:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having Swallows and Amazons be about the book would be fine with me. I don't think a disamiguation notice is necessary - just saying in the intro paragraph something along the lines of It is the first book in a Swallows and Amazons (series)|series of novels ... and introduce the link to the series article that way.   - DavidWBrooks 02:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if no-one objects over the next couple of days, I'll move this page to "Swallows and Amazons (series)" and create a page at "Swallows and Amazons" about the first book of the series. --G Rutter 10:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been gradually adding the books in the series and my plan was to do something like that eventually. We certainly need a separate article for the book. Whether it be Swallows and Amazons (series) and/or Swallows and Amazon (novel) is of less importance to me. If we use both Swallows and Amazons (novel) and Swallows and Amazons (series), we will need a disambiguation page.
Dabbler 10:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or choose one of ...(series) or (novel) (I suggest the series) to redirect Swallows and Amazons to and put a disambiguation link in it. The template can link direct to the right ones.
-- Martinp 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done- although the article on the book isn't very good yet! --G Rutter 08:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly support the seperation of the book and series articles. personally I think it makes more sense having the series as Swallows and Amazons (series) so that all the book articles in the series are the same, i.e. not with (novel) after the title. Suicidalhamster 18:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swallows and Amazons books template 

message: I feel that this article rather over estimates the disparity in Bridget's age between books. It says that she goes from 1 to 6, but in fact she has her second birthday during the first book. By the timeline given, that would only put her age out by one year, not so great an error. Jefrir (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridget's age 

message: An dead external link has just been removed. A substitute from The Independent is  here, if anyone cares to add it. I didn't put it in because I'm a little doubtful about WP:TOPIC. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taqui Altounyan obituary.  

message: If there is any evidence that Bridget's name was actually Bridget in the first book, post it here. If you can't, we have to assume that her name was retconned in the second book, and that her likelyness is only a cover (not a terribly convincing one, I might add).  --91.55.104.163 (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicky -> Bridget 

message: Here is part of a review of a promising source: . "Reading Series Fiction: From Arthur Ransome to Gene Kemp. By Victor Watson. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2000. Reviewed by David Rudd." Children's Literature Association Quarterly 26:3 (Fall 2001), pp. 154–155. Excerpt at jhu.edu. Retrieved 2012-10-03.
According to Rudd, the reviewer, "The world [that?] Watson primarily explores is Arthur Ransome's (he originally wanted to write an entire book on this author), which is given three chapters;" --P64 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promising source