Talk:Redwall
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
Archive 1 |
Contents |
[edit] Order
The table at the bottom of all of the Redwall pages has the books in chronological order. This is incorrect. They must be placed in publication order IMMEDIATELY before anyone reads the series incorrectly. And yes, it does matter. I'd change it myself but I don't know how.
How about two tables, one for each method of ordering, so that people can compare them? Lewyblue (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Salamandastron Farms
It says that Salamandastron has farms etc. I haven't read the series in a couple of years, but I seem to remeber that they were more like lots of little vegetable gardens at some of the window ledges, and a few sections of the upper slope of the volcano grew food. "Farms" makes it sound too much like Redwall Abbey's situation with regards to food production. TheTrojanHought 20:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- You would be correct. Sunflash the Mace established them, iirc. --tjstrf talk 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- So how can I condense that down into a shorter sentence to edit the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheTrojanHought (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
- Whoops, just noticed that the article had already ben edited. Sorry TheTrojanHought 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism section
It's important, it's well reasoned, and there is no reason to not include it. For you types who love to nickel and dime the hell out of wiki policy to get stuff you don't like in articles removed, I point you to WP:IAR. The criticism section improves the article, thus, it stays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.138.94.170 (talk)
- You cannot invoke IAR like that. Wikipedia is not improved by adding original research. The material is still there, and can be nicely cited, but Wikipedia is simply not the place to put original interpretation, no matter how soundly reasoned. WP:NOR isn't some technicality that's used to persecute insightful interpretation, it's a core tenet of the encyclopedia. It cannot be allowed. Now, I've left the material in the article, so you can take a look at it and find some sourcing, but it needs to be attributed to a reliable source to be permitted. I encourage you to look for some. --Eyrian 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mistake?
In the beginning of the article, you talked about how the book contained no magic except Martin and the 'seers'. Well what about 'the painted ones' in Mattimeo? would the be considered magic?
No, i think in a differnt novel of redwall they are revieled as ferretts painted up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniareader (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I just happened to see...
I was browsing through the page, you know, just picking out the interesting bits when I came across a little "something". Under the Plot Summary, it was speaking of the "monsters" in the Redwall series. It spoke of "a Loch Ness monster-type creature (from High Rhulain)" and "a giant sea serpent (from Salamandastron)". If I remember right, these were both the same creature. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Pcboy 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please excuse that post up there. I got a bit confused. :-(
Pcboy 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] redwall
did you write it during college —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.90 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
yes
- Could you please clarify your question? Malinaccier (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Plot Summary" Section
What's with the weird long paragraph about a "deity" in the Redwall series in the plot summary section? I don't understand its place in an encyclopedia article on the series. Frankly, the whole section is rather poor in terms of .. you know, summarizing the plot, but that part in particular just seems completely irrelevant. 24.174.47.208 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)