Talk:Puddleglum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Puddleglum was selected as the Narnia Portal's selected article of the month for December, 2006. |
I always thought that Puddleglum was not putting the fire out, but burning his own foot. This would allow him to regain his mind, in the same way as it is said that if you generate a harder pain, the lighter pain seems to go away. So basically, he was reminding himself that there was a graver situation. -- D. F. Schmidt (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I thought it was a little of both. Ingiald72917:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Where did the part about Puddleglum being based on Lewis's gardener come from? Can someone provide a source? (another Wikipedia article doesn't count) --Wikiwow 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I added a reference for that and, as an experiment, used the Narnia Example Article as a basis for rewriting the article. I changed the rating of the article to B-Class; should that have been Start instead? LloydSommerer 02:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, you might wanna remove some of the sections with very little content and merge them with the others. We can always rewrite those sections with more information, but for now they make the article look messy, if you will. --Wikiwow 13:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that and not have one very disjointed paragraph (I'm not that good a writer). What would we call that new section? Or do you see it fitting under a current section? Maybe just point me to an article that presents disjointed info well, so I know what you mean? LloydSommerer 15:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Aslan article is pretty nice, and doesn't resort to all these unnecessary sub-sections, though it could use some more expansion nonetheless. I understand that there's much more to say about Aslan than there is about Puddleglum, but that's exactly why this article should be cleaned up a bit. --Wikiwow 14:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- The sections that stand out to me as bad are "Name" and "Literary..." I could see moving those into a new second paragraph in the lead. This is a bit of a test case for the NarniaCharacterExample article. I'm pretty sure that it works well for a someone like Peter (see test case), less well in situations like this. The problem isn't that there is no information for a given section (in that case we drop the section) but that there is just one piece of information. Is it worth having the small sections for the sake of consistancy between all of the Narnia character articles? You might want to chime in on the discussion at the Project Narnia talk page and/or the talk page for the example article LloydSommerer 18:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Aslan article is pretty nice, and doesn't resort to all these unnecessary sub-sections, though it could use some more expansion nonetheless. I understand that there's much more to say about Aslan than there is about Puddleglum, but that's exactly why this article should be cleaned up a bit. --Wikiwow 14:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do that and not have one very disjointed paragraph (I'm not that good a writer). What would we call that new section? Or do you see it fitting under a current section? Maybe just point me to an article that presents disjointed info well, so I know what you mean? LloydSommerer 15:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, you might wanna remove some of the sections with very little content and merge them with the others. We can always rewrite those sections with more information, but for now they make the article look messy, if you will. --Wikiwow 13:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infoboxes
There is currently discussion on which of two infoboxes to use. The one seen on this page is also used on the Peter Pevensie article. The other infobox is in use on the Trumpkin and the Caspian X articles. You can see a side by side comparison of the two here and participate in discussions about them at the ProjectNarnia talk page and on the InfoBox2 talk page. LloydSommerer 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
