Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia/Archive 2

message: Could someone who has been around since the Critisism section blewup write a summary of what we've reached consensus on?  It will be a bit before I can do it.  Until then I'll paste the last consensus item as a stop-gap measure. Lsommerer 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know some of you are going to hate me for this, and I accept that. The Lewis page is too long. I've moved material there that covered criticism of Narnia to this page. I put some Pullman material first because it touches on a variety of topics (i.e., didn't fit under one subsection or another). I put the emotional sadism stuff later because it seemed to be a separate topic from sexism and racism. But it's before the "everyone likes Lewis anyway so kiss off you atheists" paragraph because that seems like the last word on the topic. Jonathan Tweet 16:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Archived Critisism Discussion (NPOV) 

message: I added The Narnia universe section mainly as a way to call attention to the fact that there is a wealth of other information on Narnia available on wikipedia. This section is not meant to duplicate that information, and certainly shouldn't present spoilers. I don't know that it is in the right position in the article.  But I think the way to fix the position is to create a new The Books section above it that very briefly summarizes each book. Lsommerer 17:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Narnia universe 

message: "Narnia director Andrew Adamson has hinted that he is already planning on making a sequel." Oh come on! We're just rehashing studio press releases if we write this. Never since Harry Potter has there been a movie for which it was so certain  that there would be a sequel. The only astonishing thing is that they aren't shooting it already. DJ Clayworth 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie Quote

message: I made a few changes recently and wanted to provide a rational for them... LloydSommerer 03:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LloydSommerer, I changed the heading for the LWW summary to make it linkable and deleted the distracting subheading (which still appears under all the other titles).  If you think it looks better I can do the same for all the rest of the summaries (or someone else can).  Endomion 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There seems to be some working at cross-purposes.  I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia page to possibly become the central point from which we can pull all the Narnia material together rather than doing it from this article.  Perhaps others can jump in to help organize that project page.  Endomion 05:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes 

message: I would like to propose a cleanup of the external links section, some of the websites listed seem to be a bit  spammy. --Ariadoss 09:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The intro states: "Written by Lewis between 1950 and 1956,...". LWW was published in 1950, but if my memory serves me correctly, Lewis began writing it years earlier. I'm not sure how to reword this, other than maybe replacing "written" with "published". --NoahElhardt 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing v. publishing 

message: Recently, a Wikipedian known as IrishGuy is putting negative trademark on Edmund Pevensie's article on purpose, labeling him as a villainous character who betrayed his siblings to the White Witch. I need someone to watch the article, and talk to him when he pulls this nonsense. 65.103.86.243
:In actuality, I am reverting it to the original language (which I didn't write) because 65.103.86.243 continues putting his own views into the article. IrishGuy talk 20:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't your job to play armchair psychologist. If, as you yourself admit, it isn't expressed in the book, then it doesn't belong in the article. Those are your own personal views and therefore unencyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edmund help

message: I propose expanding the music section of the article. Not everybody will know this, but there was another CD done for the Narnia movie besides the score. It is called Music Inspired by the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It features artists like Steven Curtis Chapman, Jars of Clay, and tobyMac. All of the songs have to do with Narnia, specifically about the movie. I would like to add something about this CD, since it is relevant to the article.--Chili14 (Talk) 01:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: What are the correct publication dates for the books. Some of the articles about the individual books have dates which don't match those given here, maybe someone should correct them.
--NeilEvans 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The publication dates given here match the copyright dates from the books I have here. LloydSommerer 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed them, but the opening paragraphs of the book articles aren't consistant. Maybe someone could write them well (or write one of them well and someone could replicate them). LloydSommerer 21:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication dates

message: I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia/Character article example as a starting point for discussion of what the articles for major characters should look like. In my opinion the Peter Pevensie article was in the best shape, so I used it as a starting point.  My purpose was not specifically to improve that article, but to have a spot to talk about, in general, how we want to format articles on Narnia characters.  It can also be used as a "template" for other characters by cutting and pasting information. The text in the example in italics are suggestions for using the example as a template.
Make any changes you like to the example; perhaps discussing major changes on the talk page first. LloydSommerer 16:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example Character Article 

message: Should we approach this the same way The Lord of the Rings does by sending all non-book adaptations to a single page? I think the top of the article looks messy now, and there are adaptations that we haven't linked to yet. LloydSommerer 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I'm wondering if it should be mentioned that inaddition to the comment allready in the article, J.K. Rowling also said something about allways having to pick up a Narnia book and read if it's in the same room. It might be a good example of being both critical and enjoying the Narnia series or maybe it would just take up too much space; hence the reason I'm asking.
--Romulus 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had a little blurb about Rowling linking the books in before, but no one can seem to find a citation for the quote. LloydSommerer 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critism (J.K. Rowling) 

message: I recently restored two items to the criticism section and thought I should explain why here
:#The O'Conner quote was removed because "according to the note to editors: 'defences should be short summaries rather than quotes'". This does not necessarily mean that there should be no quotes in the defences, and it happens that the quote is as useful as a summary of the quote would be (and probably shorter).
:#The last paragraph of the section was recently changed with the note: "(What is needed here is a source using H&P's atheism as an argument against their criticism , not ones merely verifying that they are atheists.)" The quote from Jacobs (which is sourced in the preceding paragraph) is where he discussed H&P's criticism in realationship to their atheism.  The external links to cite H&P's atheism should probably be references instead (or maybe don't need to be cited?). LloydSommerer 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes to criticism section 

message: Lately the lead has been shrinking by a sentence here and a sentence there and if this keeps on I can see us going back to a three sentence lead. Since a reasonably sized lead is considered a Good Thing, this doesn't seem like a trend that should be encouraged. I originally expanded the lead, and I harbor no notion that it is either well written or comprehensive, but it does (or rather did) at least touch on all of the main sections of the article. If you are inclined to simply remove something from the lead it might be better to rewrite it so as to maintain that aspect of the article in a better form LloydSommerer 02:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're well short of having anything to worry about yet; it's still a sizeable lead. (As one of the deleters of lead content, I think I was well justified; I don't believe it's essential to have every section of the article touched on, especially since sections can change over time, or be promoted or demoted; the reading order specifically is one section that I don't find it essential to mention in the introduction; and I found its implied link to recent critical responses odd, to say the least.) -- Perey 14:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Everytime I add a footnote saying "'The Horse and his boy' was writren before 'The Sliver Chair'" it gets removed?  Its a fact.  His stepson said it when he was hosting FoF radio serries of the books. (1st disc of the Horse and his boy)
:Probably because (a) you don't give a clear enough reference and (b) the dates of writing and publication of each book are given explicitly anyway. Myopic Bookworm 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the person who removed it, and it was simply because the information was already present in the section that covers the books. But, the information is only present in that other section because you added it previously. The only "nice" ways I could see of including that information (the footnote just didn't format well) was to add a new collumn to the table or include the information elsewhere. My thought was that it worked in nicely with the "The Books" section, and would have made the table too wide on some monitors.  LloydSommerer 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it...

message: Is "return to narnia" really part of the official title? I've never seen this before...
Tomandlu 13:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was the original title, when it was released. However, it's most commonly known as Prince Caspian. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Caspian title 

message: hi i am doing mi omwork and i wanted to ask c.s lewis where he got his idea of the lion the wicth and the wardrobe from so plz can u tell me plz!!Italic text--82.15.239.196 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C. S. Lewis has been dead over forty years. However, if you read the Wikipedia article on The Chronicles you'll see there's a section called Influences on Narnia – look for some info there. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: O.K. this is way out. I was doing a new recipe from a muffin cookbook, and there is a section on buffins. So, what are they? A Google gave the link that I have just added to the end of the 'references' section, in which a buffin is identified as a giant, in 'Lion, Witch ...'. But nothing in the article, or in the other two refereance, or the links for 'characters' and so on, mentions buffin. Is that ID real, or not??? --Dumarest 18:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a buffin?

message: I'd like to hear what people think about reordering the sections of the article. The current ordering just sort of happened over time, and maybe isn't the best way to present the material.  I'd like to propose the following order for sections:
# The books 
# Influences on Narnia 
# Narnia's influence on others 
# Christian parallels
# Criticism
# Narnia in other media 
# Reading order
# The Narnian universe 
The main change is moving reading order nearly to the bottom and moving other media up a notch. I think nearly everything here is more important than reading order (though it is a topic I'm personaly rather rabid about) and I believe we're being more professional if the Narnian universe section is the last item covered. It was originally included as a way to point readers toward the wealth of other Narnia related articles that exist, and I think that's still a valid reason to include it, but I think other media should come first in an article about the series of books. (I don't feel very strongly about this second bit).
Just for reference, the current order is:
# The books 
# Reading order
# Christian parallels
# Influences on Narnia 
# Narnia's influence on others 
# Criticism
# The Narnian universe 
# Narnia in other media 
What do you think? LloydSommerer 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering sections 

message: This section certainly doesn't give an NPOV to a reader since both articles are from the same writer, who holds a very definite POV against Pullman and for Lewis. It is important to reflect both sides of a debate on Wikipedia, so if anyone knows of any relevant articles that take an opposing view, they ought, I feel, to be added to this section.
*Personally, I don't see the point in having articles worried about Philip Pullman in its own section of the Narnia page. Does anybody else think it's ok to remove it? Murderbike 21:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: With regards the "Further Reading > On the Philip Pullman versus Narnia controversy" section

message: I summarized the main sections on the Narnia article under the The Narnian universe section.  They are meant to be short summaries; I tried not to duplicate the sections from the main article. If you add anything to them remember that they shouldn't really contain any spoilers. There are a few things that are not done yet:
#A few spots need sources.
#Lots of links could be added.
Feel free to do either of those if you'd like. LloydSommerer 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In The Last Battle, after the King has calls on the children and has been plunged into a vision where he sees them at supper, he then waits about ten minutes before Jill and Eustace appear. A week has gone by in their world, from the supper party to finding the rings, to the train crash. ElinorD (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Narnian universe'' section expaned  

message: In the article it states, "Pullman's series favours science and reason" implying that the Narnia books don't. I thought that C.S Lewis was famous for his reasoning skills and parts like Lucy trying to persuade the others that Narnia exists at the start of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe are reflecting the reasoning behind Christianity.  Does Philip Pullman's series favour reason more than C.S Lewis' series and if not should this sentence be rephrased?
: When I read that line I thought that it was drawing distinctions between "science and reason" on one hand and "religion and faith" on the other.  I realize that these are not necessarily opposites, and I haven't read the Pullman books, but that's the impression that I got. LloydSommerer 21:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning 

message: I removed these two paragraphs from the "pagan" section of "Influences" sub heading, stating that they were irrelevent in context. My changes were reverted on the basis of Lewis "defending himself himself".
First of all, I assume when we're talking about "pagan" influences we're talking  about the influence of mythology as literature on Lewis' writing, not paganism as a theology, whether Lewis was a pagan, or if the books "promote" paganism. The section should probably be retitled "Ancient Mythology" if that is the case. 
* A: CS Lewis himself stated in an essay called Is Theism Important?:
“When grave persons express their fear that England is relapsing into Paganism, I am tempted to reply, ‘Would that she were.’ For I do not think it at all likely that we shall ever see Parliament opened by the slaughtering of a garlanded white bull in the House of Lords or Cabinet Ministers leaving sandwiches in Hyde Park as an offering for the Dryads. If such a state of affairs came about, then the Christian apologist would have something to work on. For a Pagan, as history shows, is a man eminently convertible to Christianity. He is essentially the pre-Christian, or sub-Christian, religious man. The post-Christian man of our day differs from him as much as a divorcee differs from a virgin.” 
This is irrelevent to this section. We're dealing with facts. There is an influence from mythology on these books, there is no reason for a defense. The section does not discuss whether or not mythology promotes paganism, or if that was Lewis' intent.  It's more appropriate in the criticisms section, if it's appropriate on this page at all.
*B: In Lewis’ Space Trilogy the Christian God and Satan appear and take a large part in the plot (especially in Perelandra) but so do  the Roman gods Mars and Venus. Lewis solves this apparent contradiction by making clear that these are not really gods but angels who have always been loyal servants of the real God, and it was only ignorant humans who mistook them for gods. As stated in his non-fiction book The Discarded Image, an Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature (1964), this was not Lewis' invention but was derived from late medieval philosophers.
While this reinforces the influences of Roman mythology on his work as a whole, it doesn't state he intended any of the mythological creatures in the Narnia series to be angels. What's the point? maxcap 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Historically, this was a few lines in the critisism section. Later it was greatly expanded and moved to its own section. After that it was paired down a bit and moved to a newly created Influences section (by me). But I have never thought that it belonged in this article. It seems out of context here, and should, in my opinion by removed. LloydSommerer 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagan influences 

message: This article has almost no inlines, which would really help.  Otherwise, view these suggestions:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 08171dg, use 08171 dg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 08171 dg.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it is claimed
**is considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't, didn't, didn't, Don't, isn't.
*You may wish to convert your form of references to the cite.php footnote system that WP:WIAFA 1(c) highly recommends.
*Please provide citations for all of the s.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. 
Go through these and clean it up, then renominate. DoomsDay349 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: What era or... year do these books take place? Whats a question? 02:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: What happened to the Reading Order section?  It seems someone recently deleted it without any explanation.  I would prefer it back unless there's a good reason otherwise.
76.8.200.101 02:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone did some valdalism and removed 3 sections, one at a time. The person who corrected the vandalism didn't notice and only reverted the last edit.  It's back now. LloydSommerer 11:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading Order