Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Documentation
This is a WikiProject article pattern belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. It is to be used as a starting block for new novel articles and as aid to restyle existing articles.
[edit] Discussion of the article pattern template
[edit] Film, TV or theatrical adaptations
Someone is suggesting that in the interests of standardization, the WHOLE section heading above must be used in the article about Scott Turow's novel Presumed Innocent, even though the information that follows it is only about a film adaptation, with no mention of TV or stage drama. This template should be USEFUL; it should not be a straightjacket or a Prucrustean bed or a totalitarian dictator, that supercedes the user's intelligence. Michael Hardy 22:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Now, now, please be kind. It is just that the intention of a common heading is different that you are expecting. Please notice the small word "or" in the heading. In other words it does not mean that "all" have to be present for the heading to be appropriate. It is a home in the the article for any such adaptation that exists (or even will exist). I do agree it shouldn't be a straightjacket, and I personally am leaving the particular article quoted alone. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- This should definitely be "Adaptions into other media" or some such... not only due to the issue set out above, but also because many books have been adapted outside the rather limited scope that the header gives; Novels have served as the basis for comic books, concept albums, video games, radio dramas, and so on. If no one objects, I will change the header.--SB | T 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Leave as is with the dramatic basis. What you are suggesting refers to all manner of adaptations and associations, which can be included in the "==Allusions/references from other works==2 section. Their is perhaps room for improvement in the naming of these sections, or even addition sections to fill in gaps, but please let is consider this carefully. I'm not against change, but let it be carefully thought out. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, the problem with that is that adaptations are not allusions. Also, it would seem to be best to err on the side of inclusivity for a standard across all articles. I don't think anyone is assuming that all novels will have film, TV, and theatrical adaptations. "Adaptations" is fairly clear, and the section can go on to explain which media it's been adapted into. --Keitei (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Would it be catered for by either sticking with the existing heading
==Film, TV or theatrical adaptations== or ==Dramatic adaptations==
and then a new heading with something like
==Other literature adaptations== or ==Other media adapatations==
This has the advantage of distinguishing the normal type of adaptation (ie. the dramatic or theatrical) and any other (which is a lot rarer). The problem I see across most novel articles that take the general "Adaptation" route is almost complete lack of consistency, it would be good to get a general scheme that works for all novels and everyone is comfortable working with. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- But why do we have to make the distinction at all? Adaptions are adaptions; I see no practical purpose in distinguishing between "normal" adaptions and the less common ones. Having said that, there are certain works which have been adapted so many times, and into so many different media (eg Hamlet, Journey to the West) that subsections of an "adaptions" section would work well.--SB | T 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am still convinced of the difference of the dramatic adaptation. This is what is normally thought of when writing an "Adaptation" section anyway. The other types mentioned "comic books", "concept albums" or "video games" are often written up as "pop-culture media" or some such; which is slightly too dismissive in my view!
As an alternative can we adjust the existing to: (to include the "Radio drama" point)
==Film, TV or other dramatic adaptations== or
and then a new heading with something like
==Non dramatic adaptations==
These could then be used in tandem, or seperately with no lose of meaning. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Video games, comic books, and concept albums are (usually, and certainly when being an adaption of a novel) dramatic mediums. There's absolutely no reason to seperate them.--SB | T 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is an extraordinarily broad definition of "drama". The usual form is for anything with actor's on a stage (or modern version). There is a reason to seperate them - it's is just a view on it's importance. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Video games, comic books, and concept albums are (usually, and certainly when being an adaption of a novel) dramatic mediums. There's absolutely no reason to seperate them.--SB | T 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category:~year~ book vs. ~year~ novel
I saw discussion about changing category:~year~ books to category:~year~ novel. Can the template be updated to reflect this? PeregrineV 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes - Do it - oversight on our part. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Allusions/references
The use of a slash in "allusions/references" in several of the headings is unattractive. Why not use words instead of punctuation to convey the point: "allusions and references", or just one or the other where appropriate? —Michael Z. 2006-10-03 18:45 Z
