Talk:Peter Pan (sequels)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The main article Peter Pan confused facts between the original work and other works. This page will help per main talk page. Obina 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List[edit]

This is an article not a list. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obina (talkcontribs) 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a list that looks (sort of) like an article, but frankly is very disorganized. I was trying (as you keep telling us we should do) to improve it. I think that putting the information in a tabular format makes it easier to organize and compare items. Since every notable item mentioned on this page should have its own article for more detailed information than can fit in that table, there's no need to keep this article in paragraph form. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't contributed to this article before, but my suggestion would be to make it an indented list with content. If the only content were title, author and date, then perhaps a table would work; as it is, the table has seven columns, with varying amounts of information density. Personally, I find that very confusing; even just looking at it makes my brain hurt a bit.
But, equally, I find it difficult to read as a full prose article. Each paragraph contains a large number of unique names, facts and dates, each time organised in a different manner. Presumably this is to give the prose variety and keep it fresh, but I actually find it hinders absorption of the information.
So I think a list-with-content would be a good compromise. It allows both flowing prose and consistent ordering of information. Just as an example, here's what some of the paragraphs might look like in this format:
  • Peter Pan, a series of comic books by French artist Regis Loisel, which began in 1990. They constitute a bawdy, violent prequel to Barrie's work, and give Peter Pan's back story a distinctly Dickensian flavor. The series consists of six volumes.
What do you think? A good idea or a bad one?
-- KittyRainbow (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(Also, I would suggest that instead of dividing articles by both internal chronology - sequels and prequels - and external chronology - year of creation - we should organise them simply by external chronology and then note their internal chronology...)
By putting it in a table, I was trying to organize it for easier reference. For example, if you wanted to know about novels, you could just look at the "Medium" column and pick them out. Expressing that same kind of data in sentence form with phrases like "unofficial prequel novel by So-And-So released in 2000" seems more awkward. But a bullet list with the information presented consistently for each item, would be an improvement (for that purpose) over the previous format, and I'm open to that. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the bullet format better because the table is sort of confusing. Also, for people with small computer screens, the table doesn't get narrower like regular type does and then they have to scroll sideways to read it. --Linda (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)