| Revision as of 04:26, 25 October 2006 editMrDarcy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,666 edits Magnum opus field is POV - remove?← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:20, 25 October 2006 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Magnum Opus: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| This field is inherently POV; even in instances where we can find a reliable source to call one specific work by a writer his "magnum opus" or "greatest work," it will usually be possible to find another source to counter it. I suggest we remove the field. | ] <small>]</small> 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | This field is inherently POV; even in instances where we can find a reliable source to call one specific work by a writer his "magnum opus" or "greatest work," it will usually be possible to find another source to counter it. I suggest we remove the field. | ] <small>]</small> 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree. Maybe just reduce it to "Major work(s)"? This allows more than one book to be listed, or maybe, even better, just a link called "bibliography" to allow people to jump to the section where all an author's books are listed. ] 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:20, 25 October 2006
Blank Syntax
{{Infobox Writer
| name =
| image =
| imagesize =
| caption =
| pseudonym =
| birth_date =
| birth_place =
| death_date =
| death_place =
| occupation =
| nationality =
| period =
| genre =
| subject =
| movement =
| magnum_opus =
| influences =
| influenced =
| website =
| footnotes =
}}
Similar Template
There is a similar template at Template:Author. Carcharoth 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I find the other template a bit lacking. -- LGagnon 15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. But what should be done about it? It falls under the WikiProject Books purview, so I'll comment there. Carcharoth 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- In the case of Harper Lee, the implementation provides only 5 pieces of information, Four of which are covered more effectively by the opening sentence of the article. (And all of which are presented before one makes it halfway through the second sentence). In other cases, the infobox might be a nice frame for the author's photograph, but where none is available, I fail to see the point. --Dystopos 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Writing Period
Perhaps the definition of "period" should be more related to when the writing was actually done rather than published. It is particularly non intuitive with works that were published posthumously. Also with the publishing definition this window can, in principle, be extended every time some lost essay or collection of letters is found and published. --WCVanHorne 04:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
screenwriter
could this template be used on a screenwriters page? -- 216.232.214.23
- I assume it could. It's meant to be very open for any type of writer. -- LGagnon 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Magnum Opus
This field is inherently POV; even in instances where we can find a reliable source to call one specific work by a writer his "magnum opus" or "greatest work," it will usually be possible to find another source to counter it. I suggest we remove the field. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Maybe just reduce it to "Major work(s)"? This allows more than one book to be listed, or maybe, even better, just a link called "bibliography" to allow people to jump to the section where all an author's books are listed. Carcharoth 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)