User talk:Lsommerer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Contents 1 Tash 2 Narnia 3 Narnia Criticisms 4 hi! THANK YOU for welcoming me! 5 Lutheranism 6 Aslan 7 Narnia 8 Clear from the texts? 9 WikiProject Narnia 10 Dancing Lawn 11 Lantern Waste 12 Narnia edits 13 Chronicles of Narnia 14 Hello? 15 Citation style 16 Narniaweb 17 JS reviewer 18 Narnian timeline 19 Chess 20 Your recent edits to Chess 21 Rowling/Narnia 22 C. S. Lewis GA nomination 23 Wikiproject Narnia Newsletter March 2007

[edit] Tash

Your reversion with claim of vandalism on the Tash (fiction) page was unwarranted. If you'd bothered to look at the discussion page, you would have seen full justification for the removal. 68.100.18.183 10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic.

Sorry about that. You can help me make fewer mistakes of that nature by including a brief edit summary when you edit an article. When material is deleted from an article by an anonymous editor without any reason given, it looks like vandalism to me. A brief reason for the removal would help or you could just use "see talk page". LloydSommerer 13:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narnia

Ok. Thanks for the note. - Tεxτurε 18:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Narnia Criticisms

Looking around and comparing many contemporary authors to the The_Chronicles_of_Narnia entry and their treatment in Wikipedia, I am now of the opinion that the *only* criticisms which should be voiced are direct quotes with sources, much like the Lord of the Rings entry. If you look in the history and on the talk page for LOTR, many of the same accusations with no references or citations were made against Tolkien and promptly dismissed. Below the criticism section, there can be a praise section, but I think that the tit for tat is just amateurish and is getting out of hand. If someone comes and adds a new criticism, we can just request a direct reference as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think the easiest way to do this is with the ^{[citation needed]} tag. Some critics say CS Lewis was heard saying a swear word under his breath.^{[citation needed]} <<Place this tag after the claim. If they don't back it up, remove it. What do you think? We need to get it dialed in before the entry gets flooded with looky lou's and people who are excited because of the film... Cyber Denizen ^talk

I agree. If something can't be cited/quoted then it really has no business being here at all. I think that should go equally for critisisms and rebuttals to critisism. My own preference would be to encourage brief, cited rebuttals immediately following critisisms (I don't think we'll se much more cited than is currently in the article). This would follow more along the lines of The Giver, Isaac Asimov and Chuck Palahniuk. I didn't do a large search; I looked at the featured articles under liturature for these examples.

I do understand the desire to do away with rebuttals altogether. Their mere presense will tend to encourage people to add to them or detract from them. My thought is that by sticking strictly to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Wikipedia:Cite_sources any additions will tend to be appropriate or quickly reverted. My own preference would be to use {{citeneeded}} rather than{{fact}}. Speaking as a new user, the former is easier for me to understand when I see it while editing.

Would it be appropriate to put an "note" similar/identical to:{{Unreferencedsect}}at the top of the critisism section? Not to say that references need to be added, but that any additions need to be referenced? Lsommerer 04:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I cited Tolkien, was because he has received many of the same criticisms in the past and they were contemporaries - both British and both publicly Christian, as well as the obvious: they both had full length feature films made recently. I think it would be useful to use the template. Do you want to rewrite the section, or do you want me to? I won't be able to do any work until tomorrow or the next day, so if you have the time and energy go for it! Cyberdenizen 04:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I Didn't mean to imply that Tolkien isn't a good comparison. I left a message for UserOffkilter about removing the NPOV tag (she added it). But it could be awhile before she responds. I don't know what the etiquette is for removing the tag.

I'm pretty happy with the layout of the section since your rewrite. Presenting all of the critisisms of one type and then a response seems unbiased to me. It does need to be better written, and you're better qualified than I am to do that. Lsommerer 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to be heavy handed. Rather, I attempted to edit for sense, since some of the drafting was a bit sloppy, and to make the language more neutral. In regard to my comments in re Pullman (which I assume were the object of any concern), I felt it natural to include context given the attention being given to the critques from a vocally disdainful source. -- Light is Sown (12/13/05)

[edit] hi! THANK YOU for welcoming me!

Hi there. Nice to hear from you, thanks.

The movie drew me here, as well as (i'm sure) thousands of others.

As a prospective post-moviegoer coming to this site, I would have this question: "What is the Chronicles of Narnia? I want to learn more about this series."

I don't learn that with the article as it is now. I I dont mind the criticisms, but in the absence of real information about the series, it is too heavy. We need to have a "themes" section that describe in plain language the themes Lewis advocates. Too much of the article is focused on Pullman-esque counterpoints.

Your message was well received, and appreciated. I dont want to erase anything written here, I want to enhance it. Marshill 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheranism

Thanks for the link to Closed communion. It could be that it is not as POV as I've seen. In my experience it's better to describe it and not worry about who thinks what term is more accurate. Adding the lnk is an improvement no mater the language used. LloydSommerer 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but you also have to consider that the way it is currently worded might be confusing to some people, and the term "closed communion", which it may have a certain connotation among some groups, is a familiar term to a lot of people. Anyway, I think it's good enough for now until someone else thinks of a better way to word it. Peyna 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aslan

Hi,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

I agree that that quote might work better on the Aslan page, than on the current page. Feel free to move it.

Thanks

-M.

[edit] Narnia

I am not sure if you are aware, but each article must have it's own references. Judgesurreal777 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I read through the articles that had the 'reference needed' template, and they seemed to me to be based entirely on The Chronicles of Narnia series. Do you think that the fictional facts need references from the books? Each of the articles includes in the introduction that these are fictional characters/places/events/objects and the work of fiction that they are from. Are you looking for references to individual books in the series? To chapters from the books? Personally, if all of the information about a fictional thing is from that work of fiction then the article is referenced.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. There are some Narnia articles that have information that is not contained in the books, and I fully agree that those facts should each be cited. Several of us have worked hard to see that they were cited several months ago. LloydSommerer 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clear from the texts?

The main issue I have with "It is clear from the texts that The Lion was the first book and that The Magician's Nephew was not" is that it states outright one point of view when clearly there are several, nuanced points of view here. I originally read Narnia a long time ago, but I do remember reading Magician's Nephew after A Lion and realizing that the former was a prequel, which is to say the action taking place in it was being related after A Lion (since it was published after), but took place beforehand. It is clear that Digory later became the owner of the house with the wardrobe, and there was also a thing involving the tree that was actually chopped down to make the wardrobe. Apparently not everyone agrees with the internal chronology here, but saying that the opposing POV is clear from the texts contradicts other parts of the article and other Narnia articles. Andre (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Narnia

Hey there! I've just created a WikiProject Narnia members' user-box. If you want to add it to your userpage, just edit in {{User Narnia-WP}}, which will expand to:

Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on the user-box. I've been avoiding them so far, and I would be hard pressed to state a good reason why, but when I get over the avoidance, this will be the first one I put up. LloydSommerer 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing Lawn

Thanks for moving the article, I admire your efficiency as an editor! -- ben 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write. Just trying to clean up some loose ends. LloydSommerer 22:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lantern Waste

Hi Lloyd, thanks for your ongoing work with fixing the lists. You redirected Lantern Waste to the List of places, but I think Lantern Waste merits its own article, for being such an importance place in the series, with notable appearances in MN, LWW, and, if I recall correctly, LB. I just thought I'd mention this to you to see what you thought. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if I could request you to respond on my own talk page, as I don't have the will to check all the users' talk pages on which I leave messages. Thanks! I know it's against your personal preference. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(I'm going to post this here to so anyone who stumbles upon it knows the reply) From my point of view, any of the places listed at List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia could have their own article. I didn't use whether they should have their own article as the criteria for redirecting. I just looked at whether they currently have enough information to warrent an article. Personlly, I don't know what more you would say about it, but go for it.

It would be nice if we had a few model articles at the Project Narnia page. Maybe one for people and one for places. Something with premade sections so that people would know what sort of information to fill in. But that's another story... LloydSommerer 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've reverted the article and copyedited it a bit. I agree, we need a standard article, but too many of our place articles are stubs. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narnia edits

Hi, you caught me in the middle of a more extensive series of edits, and the result may have been to remove some of your changes. The edits are per your own recommendation (several months old as it is) on the Talk:List_of_Narnian_creatures page, something I only caught up to now. I hope we can discuss what to do with the dubious information, but I don't think the page can stand as it was. RandomCritic 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look great to me. Let me know when you're done and I'll change the "(LWW)" and such to links. LloydSommerer 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronicles of Narnia

How can you imply that the section describing the similarity between The Chronicles of Narnia and Christianity is not needed? You said the symbolism was too vague without an understanding of Christianity. Well that's why the comparison is so vital! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.144.122 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 August 2006 UCT.

Thank you for pointing out that paragraph. It was marked as needing a citation in February and should have been removed from the article a week afterwards. Obviously, that slipped through the cracks. It is to be removed, not because it is false, but because it is not cited. My own thought is that it presents valuable material that is better suited to the articles on the characters mentioned in the paragraph. LloydSommerer 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think removing the spoilers from the general article was a good idea. Myopic Bookworm 09:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello?

Hi Lloyd, just checking in to see if you're on a wikibreak or something. The WP Narnia has been pretty dead for the last week or so, and we have work to do! Give me a shout on my talk page or the project talk page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still around nearly every day, but I can't seem to muster enough gumption to work on any of the bigger things that need to be done, and the smaller things seem to be getting attention now (more or less). I think my next project will be to try a extensive rewrite of a book page. LloydSommerer 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, just wanted to make sure the project wasn't losing interest. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style

Hey, I see you have changed the citation style on the C. S. Lewis page back to the Harvard reference style. No sweat, but I was just wondering what you feel the problem is with the cite.php style? I felt it was much easier to use and much more user friendly. I'm afraid I have to admit that I don't understand the Harvard style at all, and it seems quite an arduous task to add a reference, whereas before, one just placed it between the ref tags and forgot about it.

My main worry is that people will be put off adding references because of its complexity. Using the cite.php style, an editor unsure of how to add references could find out very simply by looking at an existing one - this is not possible with the Harvard style (at least as far as I can see). Also, the cite.php style seems to be in its ascendancy; it is certainly featured on the majority of the pages I have seen, and I am wondering if others have the same experience.

What were the problems with it you have identified? Where there any problems with its implementation on the Lewis page that changing back to the Harvard style has addressed?

Thanks for your time! :) Martin 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Martin, First of all, nice work on the Lewis article. It really looks better since you've started working on it. Secondly, my information could be out of date. I looked at all(?) of the citation styles (cite.php, harvard, footnote2, footnote3) that were currently in use about a year ago, and haven't spent much time lately seeing if that information is still current.

About a year ago we had the sort of "problem" with The Chronicles of Narnia criticism section that C. S. Lewis has seen lately. Someone with more experience than I had pointed out that any information in the section needed to be cited and instead of simply deleting the info that wasn't cited I went looking for citations and eventually for citation methods.

Each of the citation methods had good and bad points, and I believe that cite.php will be the clear way to go before long. From reading the cite.php talk page it sounds like the author is aware of the things that people would like changed, has made the changes and is just waiting for the changes to be implemented at wikipedia. Here are the things that I don't like about the current implementation (others have expressed these better than I'm going to):

1. References must be embedded in the article. This makes it harder for casual users to edit articles. I realize that that isn't the case with the Lewis article references, but that is because our references were really just external links. They did not contain all of the other information that an actual citation should. Actual citations take-up multiple lines and really disrupt the flow of article editing, especially when they are densely packed. The right way to do it is to use one of the cite templates with cite.php.
2. Multiple citations of the same work are somewhat problematic with cite.php if you want to specify pages (which we should). This was a special consideration for the Narnia books where we would be citing the same text over and over.
3. The order of the citations in the reference section can not be alphabetical (has to be first to last).
4. You can't have a reference and notes section and use cite.php for both.

But all of these problems are being addressed, and so it won't be long before cite.php is the best choice. I actually chose harvard style over footnote3 because harvard preserves all of the information that will be needed once cite.php is "fixed". Changing to cite.php at that point should be very straight forward. There are times when Harvard style is superior because it is much easier to follow who is claiming what without jumping to the reference section every few sentences, but I don't think that is a problem with the Lewis article, and anyway this also looks like something that is also being addressed by the cite.php author.

Harvard style is obviously a lot more work than cite.php if you're just adding links, but for actual references the amount of work is much closer. Once you add the citation you have to add the link to it in the text, which is definitely more work, bit looking at an existing example should point people in the right direction.

My own inclination is that it is much more important to make editing easy than it is to make adding references easy. We do a lot more editing, and if someone is serious enough to find sources they will either (a) ask how to include them (b) lookup how to include them (c) just include them any old way and someone will come along and fix them later. LloydSommerer 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narniaweb

That's fine with me, just wanted to acknowledge the link (as it was just removed from the external links section). I'll quietly go do a self-revert now… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JS reviewer

Hello Lsommerer, I just edited your monobook.js to replace the coding from the PR script with {{js}}. This allows for me to keep track of who is using the PR script and to let you use the most recently updated revision of the script (well, at least since the last WP:BYC). Thanks, AZ _t 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narnian timeline

I posted this on Talk:Narnian timeline:

If we can find a source for this sentence "Thus, even though the timeline is not in canon, it is commonly accepted among experts and fans to have a bearing on the series," we might be good for being a FL! Can somebody find a citation for this?

You had acknowledged Lindskoog and Hooper on the talk page. If you have any sort of source for this, let's try to get it in fast while the FL nomination is still active. I'll be away for Thanksgiving. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For my money, the lead and the Verifyability(sp) sections should be combined. I only have two Narnia commentaries in front of me now, but both of them (Schakel and Sammons) use Lewis' outline as published in Hooper. LloydSommerer 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe start out with something like this:

C. S. Lewis, author of Chronicles of Narnia, wrote the "Outline of narnian history" after he completed the series. He gave it in manuscript form to Walter Hooper, who included it in his essay, Past Watchful Dragons: The Fairy Tales of C. S. Lewis (Schakel 1979, p. 143). Some people --noteably (whoever) question the authenticity of other Lewis works published posthumasly by Hooper, but the validity of the outline has not been questioned.

Okay, I've merged it into the lead. Would you mind citing Schakel and/or Sammons? I'm anxious to boot this up to Featured status! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It feels good! Just waiting for FLs to get a weekly spot on the main page, now! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chess

Hi Lsommerer and thank you for reading the article I am just rewriting. My English is horrible so I very much welcome help of a native speaker. Could you please read the section about history, too? Cheers, --Ioannes Pragensis 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - please could you explain me reasons for removing "and mind sport" from the intro? Chess has its own Olympiades and many tournaments and matches, so it is usually defined as a sport.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think this is a language issue. The closest English phrase to "mind sport" is probably something like "competitive game". Or to put it into the article:

Chess is an abstract strategy board game for two players that is played both recreationally and competitively.

I didn't understand what you meant by "mind sport" without the explanation above. Would this new wording work for you? LloydSommerer 16:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will rely on your language feeling. My own English is horrible :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to Chess

Nice work. --Dweller 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowling/Narnia

This isn't much, but I found a Sarasota Herald Tribune article that references Narnia's influence on Rowling. There's also this interview with the Sydney Morning Herald (hosted on Angelfire, so maybe not a valid source), where Rowling states, "... Generally there isn't much humor in the Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so caught up I didn't think C.S. Lewis was especially preachy. Reading them now I find that his subliminal message isn't very subliminal at all ..." It's interesting how her own quotes seem to contradict -- I also found the one where she states she hasn't finished them, as well as the one where she states she'll still read one of the Chronicles if she finds herself in a room with one. Jpers36 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C. S. Lewis GA nomination

Hi, I'm just letting regular contributors to the C. S. Lewis article know that its good article nomination is on hold until more references are added to the article. We have two weeks to bring the article up to the required GA standards. If you can spare some time, it'd be great if you could add some references to the article, and hopefully improve its chances of becoming a Good Article. If you know of any other editors who would be interested in helping out, please let them know. Cheers, Martin 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Narnia Newsletter March 2007

WikiProject Narnia Newsletter Issue 1 - 2nd March 2007 . Written by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs)
WikiProject Narnia News The WikiProject has been a little quiet lately. There are still quite a lot of Narnia stubs. It has been nearly three months since we last worked on Minor characters in The Chronicles of Narnia, which still looks very much like a draft page. That would be a nice article to get into the main namespace. Good and Featured Articles First Battle of Beruna has been listed as a GA. Our only FA at the moment is Narnian timeline. Other news WikiProject Narnia's first newsletter issue has been published. You're looking at it right now! Member News We are now proud of having PiratesArCool (talk • contribs), Mimepants (talk • contribs) and Johann1870 (talk • contribs) on our team. Good luck! To-do Add characters and bios to minor character draft page. Expand Narnia stubs. Place links to the Narnia Portal on article pages by using {{portal|Narnia}}. Add the stub template {{Narnia-stub}} to articles in the category Category:Stub-Class Narnia articles so that there are the same number of articles in Category:Narnia stubs. Link the first mention of a year in all Narnia-related articles to Narnian timeline. Rewrite character articles to use the Narnian character example article format. Adopt an article and improve it to the best of your ability. Wikify The Chronicles of Narnia article, especially the new lead and Narnian Universe sections	From the founder I am proud to present our first issue of the WikiProject Narnia Newsletter. I decided that we needed to alert everybody who had expressed interest in the project that there is much work to be done! Please check in every once in a while at the project talk page, and tell other project members what you've been up to in terms of Narnia articles. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || Article of the Month: Edmund Pevensie Edmund Pevensie is a major character in The Chronicles of Narnia. He appears as a principal character in three of the seven books. Edmund was the second to enter Narnia, although he tried to betray his siblings to the White Witch. However, Edmund managed to help save Narnia by neutralizing the White Witch's most powerful weapon, her wand. Collaboration of the Month: Shasta (Narnia) Shasta is currently quite short and not much of his background has been mentioned. The article also lacks images – but make sure if you upload one, you include a FU rationale. Contribute!