Talk:Sally Lockhart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sally Lockhart article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Ruby in the Stone

It was set to a redirect but I have turned it back - it does need expanding. (Emperor 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Sally Lockhart - Suitable name?

Should this page be re-named Sally Lockhart Series or Quartet? Sally Lockhart is the name of the protagonist but that does not suit the name of the article? Rach.a.davies 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I can see a good arguement for having this entry focused on the character and another one for the series. I'd tend to favour "Sally Lockhart series" as it is currently a quartet but what if the success of the TV adaptations give him the idea to do another one? Then again Pullman calls it a quartet [1] so perhaps that might be the best route and if he does write another we can move this again. (Emperor 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC))