Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media franchises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:SERIES
Wikipedia main articles: WPP:series, WikiPedia:WikiProject Novels, WPP:Novels, WikiPedia:WikiProject Books, and WPP:Books

Contents

[edit] Representative Article

Template:SampleWikiProject

I suggest The Foundation Series article as the representation of this project - it's even listed on the Wikipedia:Featured articles page. Anyone disagrees? Ausir 03:23, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think The Foundation Series is too small a universe. We should be considering something like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, or Star Wars. The same rules aren't going to apply to series with dozens of potential related articles and ones with hundreds :). Gaurav 17:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. It's rather better to find out that you've made a horrendous mistake on only a small number of pages than on a huge number: the reverting would take much less time and give much less chance of making further mistakes. I'm actually liking the idea of using (visual) tables now the self-linking thing is working nicely. Thus we could construct a Mediawiki:Books in the FUBAR series table and {msg:include}} it into each book in the series. Thus whenever a new book is added to the series it automagically appears in all the other articles. --Phil 17:29, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
20 books is not that small of a series (of course it's nothing compared to the number of SW books, but more than LotR, not to mention Harry Potter - of course the number of LotR articles will be bigger (or rather, Middle-earth, as LotR is not a series - it's a single book most often, but not always, divided into 3 volumes). Still, Foundation is a very well known series, the only science fiction series ever awarded the special "Best All-Time Series" Hugo Award. It's also certainly one of the biggest science-fiction series not counting the ones based on movie/tv licenses. And the "Foundation Series" article is pretty much complete currently, compared to other series articles. Ausir 19:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Regarding Phil's comment. The other side of that coin is that a framwork that is only tested on a subject that involves a smaller set of articles, and therefor is likley to be less complex, may not work for a larger subject. To make sure that its robust enough, and that the examples cover enough cases as to be useful to others trying to learn the framwork, then the test case should be ... well at least in the upper 25% of complexity. 207.46.121.17 22:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about Middle-earth as the representation? It has been featured recently. Ausir 10:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest a series thjat is more complex (has more books and more sub-series) than either Foundation or LOTR, and one on which perhaps there is not quite so much pre-existing work. Perhaps the Aubrey/Maturin series by Patrick O'Brien, which starts with Master and Commander? Although there is a lot of pre-existing work on that series, also. DES 30 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

[edit] Film series: Not as few as you think.

"The parent of this WikiProject is the WikiProject Novels, as it is not clear whether movie series (which rarely exceed three movies) need further organisation. We may move to Arts and Humanities if the need arises."

It is not that rare. There are 99 trilogies listed and 121 series of films that are above 3 in length. Lady Aleena 06:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists of film serires:

Keep that list in mind for this project. - LA @ 14:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated Notice of 'Resurection'

Belated Notice


   On the following section, a 'seeming Non-sequitar'

  • ...it's really not. Lady Aleena is responding to a notice on WPP:Books and WPP:Novels that I was going to try and revitalize this WikiProject ca mid-last-week. I just hadn't gotten here to plant my first spade into this page yet. I'm 'overbooked' momentarily, preoccupied and involved on a Meta interwiki category linking system of all language wikipedias to the commons (Project proposal that spun-off from/as part of a Commons project re-catting Maps categories into a uniform heirarchial top-down designed system.), at least on Meta defined categories at the moment.
  • You might take note of the new shortcuts posted to the project page: WPP:series / WPP:seriesTalk and the more eponymous WP:WFs (all caps match as in initialisms).
  • But I'll be moving things incrementally as at increasing speed as that settles. So stay tuned to this 'Bat Channel', as it were. I'll be spamming more folks and notices on the VP, etc. when time permits. Anyone want to help with some of that advertising? Aleena, you did some spamming on your excellent proposal, do you have a list you can share? Drop it on User:fabartus/desk if so. Thanks!
Besides, it's summer! <g> Family and RL comes first! Go grok with your favorite summer hangout while you wait! ttfn // FrankB 18:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look at the Xanth series and Midkemia and Kelewan

Take a look at the Xanth series to see how things are being handled there. You might also want to look at Midkemia and Kelewan for locations in a series and how they are handled. Just a few thoughts.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 14:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I intend to make a start on such a survey this week some time. I'm 'overbooked', but these are 'old favorites' I occasionally still re-read, and would have checked them out now that it seems I'm being sucked into matters fictional as a more primary wikiPfocus. Good suggestions. I'd looked into one other (Humanx Commonwealth ) that I was tempted to 'rename' as ending with 'series', but this all needs worked out. Honorverse isn't 'Honorverse series' either, so 'Waiting will fill' 'til I Grok with you all! // FrankB 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle-earth

Middle-earth is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project material in article-space categories

Please don't add project pages, and categories of project pages (such as Cat:WikiProject Fictional series) to categories designed for use on articles. Doing so is to hopelessly jumble up metadata (for use by editors) with the actual encyclopaedic "data" (for the use of readers). Alai 07:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holmes Project

It seems that right now Wikipedia:WikiProject Holmes is, at best, dormant. Would this project be interested in perhaps either making it a sub-project of itself, or, if that isn't workable, perhaps deleting it? The scope of your project seems to me at least to almost completely overlap. B2T2 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Narnia

Hello all, I added the WikiProject Narnia to the list of descendent projects. I also wanted to inform you all that I recently nominated Narnian timeline for Featured List status; however, it was not promoted due to no support votes (there was only one participant in the nomination, and it was a comment). I was going to renominate it but I feel that it could be better referenced. You will see in the timeline there is a section concerning the verifiability of the source. If anybody knows anything about the Walter Hooper/Kathryn Lindskoog feud, it would be greatly appreciated if you could head over to the article and see if you agree with the Verifiability section. If so, I think we need a reference that C. S. Lewis scholars accept the timeline as by him and not Hooper. Once this is cited in some way, I'm going to renominate the timeline and I urge you all to assess it accordingly, as I was advised on the talk page of WP:FLC. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we managed to find a source for the sentences, so I've renominated the page at WP:FLC. Hope you'll get a chance to look at the article and assess it accordingly. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussions of categories of series, sequels, and other serial formats

Haha, well, I didn't realize there was a WikiProject for this. I just started a Category:Series to collate Television series, Book series, and so on. This came from a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion on another serial form, the various sequels category; a category I think very problematic. More discussion at Category talk:Sequels. --lquilter 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD notice

[edit] New Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond banner question

There is now a new project at the above page. There has been repeated concern expressed here and elsewhere about the proliferation of project banners on talk pages. On that basis, I was wondering if any of the members of this project might be willing to, possibly with Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, set up some sort of arrangement so that one banner might somehow function for whichever of the three mentioned projects apply to a given article? John Carter 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Realms Series

I noticed that this project does not yet have a Forgotten Realms section. As there already is a dragonlance section, I think this would fit in nicely, or is there a reason it has not been included?--Mirage GSM 09:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Banner

I have created a banner for the project at {{WikiProject Fictional series}}. I am fairly sure someone can add little tabs for the various other projects that deal with fictional series. Please let me know if any of you want to see the banner placed anywhere, or if you want the assessment page created to go with it. Thank you. I do think having a banner which could include assessments, and possibly tabs for various subprojects, might be one of the best ways to perhaps reduce the number of different projects relating to fictional series in general. John Carter 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no idea where to put this but...

the needs to be like a task force or something for the deltora book series. the articles are just a step above (in my opinion) from sucking. --munkee_madness talk 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if they've got enough content for a separate task force. I will add the project banner to them, so that we know we work with them, though. John Carter 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invulnerable characters

Hi, you know how in certain types of literature, there are characters who can never be killed? For example, the main cast of Star Trek - several of them seemed to get killed, but they were always back to normal by the end of the episode. Does anyone know of a name for this phenomenon, or articles about it that could be used as references? I ask because there's an article about character shields, and another called Wedge-type character, and they're both fairly poor; the latter is under deletion discussion. It seems to me that the phenomenon deserves an article. Please contribute to the discussion if you can. Thanks, Tualha (Talk) 09:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The revival and reboot

So what do you all think so far? - LA @ 01:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. My only real questions would be how to determine the scope of the project. There is a bot out there which can automatically tag new articles as they are created which fall in any categories listed with that bot as being directly relevant to those projects, and I have a very strong feeling we're going to be needing quite a rather large number of bots for the tagging for this project. But, before we do that, I think it would help to have some parameters in place first.
In general, where there are several overlapping projects, which there will be with many of the articles this project expects to deal with, I think the general guideline so far is that if there is a "descendant" project with a more focused scope which deals with a given article, that the "ancestor" (or whatever) project leaves the article untagged so long as the descendant project remains separate or active. However, there are a huge number of projects that deal with this subject, including some like WP:NOVELS which itself already has several "descendant" projects. Figuring out exactly what does and does not fall within the scope of the project, and how to define that scope, would probably be the first order of business. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping that more people would come back and give this a chance. As for the scope, I am not sure as of yet. I think we need more input from other users. - LA @ 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It'll take a bit more banner placement and other forms of "advertising" for people to know the group is active, and that would probably involve knowing what the scope of the project is in advance. My first opinion would be that, if a given subject is not so prominent that it occupies a central part in the scope of a given project, like Spider-Man does with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group, then we might do best to leave basically the entire subject to that group, provided they cover the entire subject, as they would have a lot of specific information we wouldn't necessarily have. If, however, the subject is one which has a significant presence, including new stories, in several media which does not in its entirety fall within the scope of any other single projects with associated work groups, and it isn't a clear and obvious central focus of an extant group, like Spider-Man is, then we could, reasonably, try to work on all the articles related to that subject. Now, there might be some problems with the various subprojects of Novels in this regard, and it might be best to contact them directly about how to deal with these subjects for their input. But, if this group were to be able to provide a bit clearer focus on all the content related to a given subject, I think that that project, and any others, might very easily welcome the reduced burden on themselves. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

For the purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes#Proposed merger. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would merging the Shannara Wikiproject with this one be bad?--it makes it quite generalized....I dunno.....the_ed17 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea would be to have one place which could provide guidelines for all the projects which deal with subjects which are, as it were, relevant to several media. Holmes is clearly one such, Shannara as well, although to a lesser degree. It would also allow the projects to potentially keep functioning separately, with their own assessments, into the future. And maybe renaming the project something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Multimedia series might be or something similar might help clarify the scope of the project. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another possible merger

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lemony Snicket is apparently inactive as well. That makes at least four projects which could be counted as being "child" projects, including Narnia and those already proposed, which could be integrated into the banner. Seeing this project successful there would probably be one of the best ways to get other editors interested in maybe merging in other projects as well. I still haven't found an image for the project banner, not that it's necessarily required though. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, with a different way of looking at it
  • In general, oppose all these based on the principal that a large series (Potter, 1632, Holmes, Hornblower, etc.) needs to have a place and structure and tools tailored to said project. OTOH, to my way of thinking, all such should be categorically a subproject of this, which in turn is and should be a subproject of Wikiproject Novels and whatever video projects there are out there. Multimedia existance of a series is a whole 'nother complicating factor, though my impression is it's been fairly well handled so far by the interested parties. (e.g. James Bond, Potter, and Hornblower to name three iconic treatments. Wikiproject Middle Earth is presumably doing a fair job in handling the Movies as well as the books.)
    • How to get one sub-project member to monitor the notional parent project activities and guidelines is one of our institutional problems, as it were, and if it really be a problem. // FrankB 21:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of turning any or all of these projects, as well as potentially any others, is to preserve the independent integrity of the existing group while at the same time getting another group, which would be at least potentially more active, involved in the upkeep of the articles. I can't think that the issues faced by any of these groups are ones which are solely faced by those groups. Tarzan will doubtless face much the same situations as Sherlock Holmes will in wikipedia, for instance. By turning them into "subprojects" of the one parent project, and, at least often, integrating them into the existing project's banner, they can at least potentially remain operating entites into the forseeable future, while at the same time getting a bit more clear input from a broader number of editors familiar with the broader subject material. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So they will be independent subsidiaries? If they WILL be independent, why is there a debate? ...andd soes it even matter? the_ed17 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The basic questions are whether they will use the project banner for this project or not, and what the naming of the projects would be. In some cases, they are transferred to pages saying "WikiProject X/Y task force or work group" pages. Regardless of naming though, at least for the forseeable future, the project banner for this project should be able to allow for separate assessments for each group. I think I've seen MILHIST has about 60 such assessments integrated into its banner, and we should be able to do the same. Personally, I'd favor renaming most of these groups to a variation on "task force" or "work group", but that is still on the table as well. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New name proposal

I propose that the new name of this project be Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises. - LA @ 09:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support John Carter (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose--a little late (it's already been renamed) but how does "media franchises" relate to "fictional series"? the_ed17 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment--So, is this still a good WikiProject to oversee works that may exist in Novel and Comic form, but not film, TV, or radio? e.g., the fictional works of Michael Moorcock Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Merger; the Shannara WikiProject, the Lemony Snicket WikiProject and the Sherlock Holmes WikiProject into this one.

  • Support--no point not to, I guess. the_ed17 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Either Novel or Children's Lit would be better projects for them to be attached to. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose with regards to Sherlock Holmes. It is far too big a topic to combine with other Wikiprojects, and the parallel merger proposal with WikiProject Novels indicates a lack of understanding of the breadth of the Holmes franchise which goes far beyond books. It is easily on par with Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond with regards to its breadth. Of course the main Sherlock Holmes article can certainly be added to the project, as many articles fall under multiple projects. 23skidoo (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated project banner

The project banner has now been updated. I am now setting it up for the Sherlock Holmes group as well. Any other changes required, let me know and I'll make them. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

Proposal to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First order of business

I would think that the first thing the project should do, now that the project banner exists, is go about and tag the main article for every subject which the members of the project feel falls within the project's scope. By so doing, we will announce to the editors of the pages in question both the interest of the project and make it easier for our own editors to find the various other articles relevant to the project. Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposed subproject

There is now a proposal for a group to work on content related to Dracula at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Dracula Project. Any parties interested should indicate their support there. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.