Template talk:Fantasy

New user not following common Wikipdedia practice

The template could definitely use some improvement, and without a doubt could be made a lot smaller. While the template itself is still young and obviously needs more fine-tuning, a new user here on Wikipedia is attempting to render all of that moot by just arbitrarily deleting the template. Why said user would want to delete rather than improve, and why said user would not discuss the issue before nominating it for deletion is unclear, but new users tend to do weird things. While I'm confident this user's vote to delete it will be the only one, it does tell us that the template needs some streamlining. --Corvun 23:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I must say, i take exception to the tone of the above. I have been here a bit over 6 months, you a bit over a year. OTOH, I have roughly twice as many edits as you do.

I say that a new and quite large template had been added to several articles that were on my watch list. It seemed to have been created largely by a single user. It was quite large, overpowering soem of the articels on which it was placed. It did not seem to square with WP:CLS. The articles linked in the template are rather loosely related, in my view. And a number of similer navigation tempaltes have recently been deleted on WP:TFD whre I have been active for several months. So I nominated it for deletion.

I did take the trouble to notify you of my actions, which i need not have done. I still think that this template would be better deleted. But if the consensus is otherwise, so be it. DES ^(talk) 02:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If you've been here six months, you may want to take "I am a fairly new editor on wikipedia" off of your user page. I would think a fan of fantasy and science fiction would appreciate efforts to draw together some of the rather scattered, though very very important, aspects of the fantasy genre and make them more easily accessible to eachother. But I guess you think that fans of the fantasy genre should have to blindly stumble around confusing categories and unpredictably-named articles trying to find information that should be easily accessible from one place. Wikipedia has no value if it isn't user-friendly to anyone other than Wikipedians. --Corvun 03:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I had forgotten that was on my user page. If that's what you based your comment on, I apologize. DES ^(talk) 03:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why suggest deletion?

In general I don't think nav templates all that helpful, except when there are a group of subjects very closely linked, for example articles dealing with a single fantasy universe. I think normal links or possibly a see-also section in the article itself is generally the way to go. Many of these could be linked to from the main Fantasy article, and that should probably be linked to from everywhere you have put this template. I agree that wikipedia should be helpful to general users. I don't think this template helps to make it so. i think it gives the impression that the editor knows what subjects the reader is interested in , when that may not be correct, and when it is not, the template is not highly useful. DES ^(talk) 03:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of templates like these is to make navigation easier. If you don't think the template does this, then why not do something constructive like helping to improve it so that it does make navigation easier? Why the "delete first and ask questions later" approach? Why not try being constructive rather than destructive? --Corvun 04:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Because I don't think any possible change would make this a helpful template. I think the whole idea was misguided at the start. I think navigation templates can be helpful, when and only when there are a set of closely related articles about basically the same central subject. A nav template for middle-earth related articles, for example. But Fantasy as a whole is IMO too broad a range for a nav template to be a helpful approach. that is why I suggested that thsi template be deleted. DES ^(talk) 04:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that WP:CLS#Article series boxes says, in part: "You should only use an article series box for an actual series — when it forms a complete linear series." and "A series should have a natural ordering, whether chronological or otherwise." and "Is someone likely to want to read the articles in this series in linear order?" Now the status of WP:CLS is unclear -- it is not policy, and may not even cout as a guideline. But I think its advise is generally wise, adn in this case it helps to explain why I don't think a nav template is appropriate, no matter how it is edited. DES ^(talk) 04:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't say I agree with you, but I can see why you made the choice you did. Discussing the matter first wouldn't have made any difference, because you knew ahead of time that no amount of discussion would change your mind on the matter. While I myself would have tried discussing it first as a matter of courtesy, you at least bothered to inform me of your actions afterwards so I suppose I can't fault you too much.

In response all I have to say is that while you may be right that this is the wrong type of navbox, these subjects are all very closely related, and to someone who is completely new to the subject of fantasy (as we should assume the reader would be), these are "a set of closely related articles about basically the same central subject". Fantasy only seems to be a broad range of diverse subjects once you've become familiar with it. The average joe understands fantasy only as "swords and dragons and stuff" and until those movies came out, probably thought that "Middle-Earth" was the place visited in Journey to the Center of the Earth; and as the average joe is the assumed audience, I felt an introductory series on fantasy would be helpful. Something to introduce those who know nothing about the subject to just how diverse and wide-ranging a topic it really is in a pallatable, un-intimidating manner. Categories are anything but un-intimidating to someone who knows little of the subject he or she is looking up, appearing to be nothing more than huge, alphabetized assortments of strange and unfamiliar terms that give absolutely no guidance as to where to start (nor do they give the reader any idea what he or she is clicking on). Meanwhile, the fantasy main page was getting far too big, and it was clear that no single article of reasonable size could hope to provide such a starting point; so, it was converted into a series. The other (not split from the main article) pages the navbox was placed on were only those which deal with common enough features of the fantasy genre to help introduce the newcomer, and which do appear, to the newcomer to fantasy, to be closely related, dealing with what the newcomer perceives as basically the same central subject.

In response to your example of the "Middle-Earth" series: Most people, even those familiar with the fantasy genre, probably wouldn't see any reason to have more than four pages on the subject -- one for The Hobbit and one for each of The Lord of the Rings books. In fact most of the material relating to Middle-Earth here on Wikipedia looks as if it were written for a 4th year "Tolkienology" student. --Corvun 05:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I have argued that there should not be separate articles for the separate volumes of LotR, because it is essentially a single work, and Tolkien himself always so viewed it. I have also argued that many of the smaller pages at least, particularly those on minor characters, should be merged. Mind you, ther is a place for articels primarily of interst to the specialist as well as those aimed at the more general reader, IMO. Many of the articles on scientific or mathematical subjects, for example, are going to be of interest mostly to readers who already have a fair amount of background. And there is a large bosy of serious scholarly discussion of middle earth, after all. But ther cna be a tendancy on the part of thsoe deeply intersted in a subject to go overboard.DES ^(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You write: Something to introduce those who know nothing about the subject to just how diverse and wide-ranging a topic it really is in a pallatable, un-intimidating manner. This is, IMO, a worthy goal. I think it might better be implemented in an article than in a navigation template, so that the links and relations could be made more explicit, but I will admit that such an article would not be simple to write.DES ^(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I was also influenced by seeing that the template seemed to be pretty much the sole creation of a single user, created with little or no discussion, and so there seemed no need to discuss before putting it on TfD, where a discussion ought to follow. That was probably hasty of me, although my view of the merits is unchanged. I should at least have written more on why I thought deletion a good idea. DES ^(talk) 05:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You know it's amazing the number of things we're agreeing on. Most of this seems to boil down to the fact that you don't seem to like templates -- particularly side-oriented navboxes -- being used except when absolutely necessary, whereas I find them much more convenient and useful for related subjects than the usual methods of navigation.

Since it looks like the consensus will be to keep the template (in one form or another), would you at least be willing to help make it as useful and functional as possible should the result of the vote be to keep it? --Corvun 07:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Make this template a footer?

One user recently made a comment, stating that footers are less visually obtrusive than side navboxes. While this have the disadvantage of the reader not immediately knowing that the pages are part of a series, it has occurred to me that many of the sub-topics removed from this template could be re-incorporated, a lot less obtrusively, in a footer, which would also be able to keep such large bodies of information in a much smaller amount of space. There's nothing about these pages, I don't think, that requires they be presented as a series, and in fact presenting them as such might be disadventageous later on, if certain subjects, such as the history of fantasy, were to grow large enough that that splitting them into multiple pages would be desirable. In such a case, these "sub-subjects" might need a series template (in the hypothetical example of the history of fantasy, which would need to be presented chronologically), and this current series template would prevent that from being done.

So, anyone for turning this into a footer? --Corvun 02:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

My edit

I was leaning towards voting for deletion at WP:TFD, but consensus already seemed to be to keep. Anyway, I've editted the template to a more conventional design, modeled after Template:Jesus. I particularly wanted to remove the image, since it doesn't really represent certain subgenres of fantasy (like Science fantasy and Superhero fantasy]]). I don't think any image can be that all-encompassing, so my suggestion would just be to leave it imageless. Coffee 07:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not an entirely bad idea. I only used the image for the sake of thematic consistency, as it was already being used for the {{Fantasy-stub}} template. Ideally I'd like the template to be an attractive one (notice the one here is very easy on the eyes), so that it wouldn't be an eye-sore, the next best thing is one as conventional as possible. Especially right now, with all the discussion going on as to what form the template will eventually take. Very cool. --Corvun 07:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fantasy subculture

I don't believe the four links under fantasy subculture really flow with the rest of this template -- it's stretching a little far past general fantasy there. Is there any consensus to remove it? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As there's been no response here in a week, I'm taking the initiative to remove the "fantasy subculture" section of the template. It seems to me like there just isn't a strong connection between general fantasy stuff and very specific fantasy stuff. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy games?

I was wondering why there isn't a link to a list of fantasy games? By games, I mean video games, board games, role playing games (many Nintendo games as well as Dungeons and Dragons comes to mind). If there isn't a list, I request one be made. Jon Fawkes 02:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was curious about the same thing, although I thought perhaps it should include a link to the topic of games in the fantasy genre. It seems to be a significant missing topic as far as "Fantasy media" is concerned. Unmotivate 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is without a doubt a major oversight for this template. Fantasy is a major source for video games and tabletop gaming alike. Particularly, Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: The Gathering, The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, and many others incorporate a wide range of fantasy influences, and such video games make up some of the most widely consumed fantasy-based media outside of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. JadailyTCU (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't Spectrum Fantastic Art Mentioned?

Shouldn't Spectrum Fantastic Art be refered to in this article? It's an annual compilation of the "best" in fantastic art, judged each year by a jury of top artists in the industry. It regularly includes works by artists such as Brom, Michael Whelan, John Howe and many others. So far there are 14 volumes (released annually), and 15 is scheduled for release in the fall. The volumes are titled Spectrum followed by the volume number. That is, this year's volume will be titled Spectrum 15. Inclusion in Spectrum is highly sought after and extremely competitive. Each year thousands of artists respond to the call for entries with the hopes of getting in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asharrison (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Top image

Anybody have any suggestions for a better lead image, one that's more of an icon, instead of some mediocre WoW character designs? Because that's what the current images look like. They seem a little too cartoonish, and too trite, not really showings wide enough sweep of this rather broad genre. oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think an illustration from some of Tolkien's works might be more apt. Those were very influential.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Pretitle

Should a pretitle field be added to this template to make the purpose of the sidebar clear? I note that above an editor said they based this one on Template:Jesus which does use the pretitle. (Related post: Template talk:Internet#Pretitle?) Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)