what is the point of creating a template with lots of redlinks, apparently with no intention to ever write the articles linked? I created redirects now, but this template should really be altered to link to a useful collection of existing articles, not to what somebody at some point thought would be useful to have. dab(𒁳) 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The template has since been filled up, rendering this need for deletion obsolete. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC))
What is the rationale for including Chronicles of Narnia here? It doesn't seem to me that the series deals with witchcraft in a manner that is significantly different from many other fantasy series. If it were up to me, I would include only works for which witchcraft is a central theme. I'm not sure that's the case for Narnia, certainly not to the degree of the other works listed. My concerns are that (1) the article doesn't need a navbox with mostly unrelated topics, and (2) this navbox doesn't need links to articles that don't really benefit the subject. I titled this section generically because I expected to find other works that might not belong, and even though the rest of the current list have much stronger cases for inclusion, there ought to be a line drawn somewhere in general.
Actually, now that I look at WP:NAV, I would say that most if not all of the fictional works should be removed. They're not really part of any coherent group that a reader would generally want to navigate through. A category would serve the intent far better (and the category could certainly be included in the navbox). Thoughts?
I completely agree. Seems to me to be a case of not everything needs a navbox, and I share your concern of the navbox clutter that is likely to ensue. I agree a category would be better. oknazevad (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
A listing of articles for which there is no reasonable theoretical limit to the numbers of articles that can be included. Some examples are a list of people who are notable for the same reason but otherwise have no connections, or companies within the world or a country providing the same products or services.
A collection of minimally related subjects. For example, people who are notable for having committed the same type of crime in unrelated incidents.
This seems to fall in that category. If the contrary article encouraging navboxes says not to create them for "minimally related subjects", then we certainly should not. I propose this navbox be deleted.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, a category would likely be better, particularly if properly named such as "Works of fiction including witches or witchcraft". This would also sidestep concerns whether a work with one or more characters who are witches is 'about' witchcraft. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Question - Technically this isn't just a "Witchcraft" navbox, correct? It's a "Witchcraft" and "magic" navbox. So shouldn't it be included on that basis? Or is there another magic-only navbox that could be appropriately substituted? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
One problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that even disregarding the witchcraft/magic distinction for the moment, it's still an indiscriminate (somewhat boundless, as WickerGuy mentions above) collection of works with no other relationship. They don't really belong in any such navbox. A category would be much better. --Fru1tbat (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the list is arbitrary and out of place, so I've eliminated it. Also, I am very surprised to see the Bible listed as a major treaty of sorcery and witchcraft. I've taken it away too. I acknowledge I am not an expert on the matter, but I believe that if a particular book of the Bible can be described from a NONPOV as a treaty on witchraft we'd have to list this particular book only.--RR (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)