Talk:Redwall

Order

The table at the bottom of all of the Redwall pages has the books in chronological order. This is incorrect. They must be placed in publication order IMMEDIATELY before anyone reads the series incorrectly. And yes, it does matter. I'd change it myself but I don't know how.

How about two tables, one for each method of ordering, so that people can compare them? Lewyblue (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Legend of Luke" placement is incorrect, please put before "Martin the Warrior" Rincewind32 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The author's website, www.redwall.org , has a different chronological order. Would that not be the best place to get that information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.158.194 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to know this too. I added the chronological order mentioned by Brian Jacques himself on http://www.redwall.org/faq.php in the Swedish equivalent of this article, before even taking a look at the English one. I realized just now that you have a different chronological order in this English article. I think the articles should show the same information, but I am not sure which the "right" information is. Shouldn't it be what the author himself has stated? Who made up the order you are currently using in the first place? There is no valid link that supports it. /Averuuh ♥ 19:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Salamandastron Farms

It says that Salamandastron has farms etc. I haven't read the series in a couple of years, but I seem to remeber that they were more like lots of little vegetable gardens at some of the window ledges, and a few sections of the upper slope of the volcano grew food. "Farms" makes it sound too much like Redwall Abbey's situation with regards to food production. TheTrojanHought 20:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You would be correct. Sunflash the Mace established them, iirc. --tjstrf talk 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So how can I condense that down into a shorter sentence to edit the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheTrojanHought (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Whoops, just noticed that the article had already ben edited. Sorry TheTrojanHought 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

It's important, it's well reasoned, and there is no reason to not include it. For you types who love to nickel and dime the hell out of wiki policy to get stuff you don't like in articles removed, I point you to WP:IAR. The criticism section improves the article, thus, it stays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.138.94.170 (talk)

You cannot invoke IAR like that. Wikipedia is not improved by adding original research. The material is still there, and can be nicely cited, but Wikipedia is simply not the place to put original interpretation, no matter how soundly reasoned. WP:NOR isn't some technicality that's used to persecute insightful interpretation, it's a core tenet of the encyclopedia. It cannot be allowed. Now, I've left the material in the article, so you can take a look at it and find some sourcing, but it needs to be attributed to a reliable source to be permitted. I encourage you to look for some. --Eyrian 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive read 5 of these books!

Ive only read one :( But ive read it 5 times! :D

Then we are even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.10.23 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

May I add that I've read 15 of them to date?Dinotitan (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is quite silly. First, when I see "criticism" I expect to see critics mentioned--serious literary critics. Second, it's full of comic book terms that don't apply to literature like Redwall ("Stormtrooper effect?" I thought you were talking about WWI, and it wasn't until a few minutes on the corresponding Wikipedia entry that I realized it was a Star Wars reference, which totally changed my interpretation). Until some actual literary critics are cited (and I have no doubt there are plenty who have looked at this series), I'd say delete the whole section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoursfaithfully (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistake?

In the beginning of the article, you talked about how the book contained no magic except Martin and the 'seers'. Well what about 'the painted ones' in Mattimeo? would the be considered magic?

Blow it our your ass, if you please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.134.122 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, i think in a differnt novel of redwall they are revieled as ferretts painted up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniareader (talk • contribs) 03:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in Mattimeo where it was revealed already. 80.101.199.130 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's explained in the Long Patrol that they are Tree Rats who paint themselves for camoflauge. They are only mentioned in books; Mattimeo, the Long Patrol, and, uhh, one other one. 213.202.173.109 (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also reaffirmed in Doomwyte if that is any help. Gloryify (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to see...

I was browsing through the page, you know, just picking out the interesting bits when I came across a little "something". Under the Plot Summary, it was speaking of the "monsters" in the Redwall series. It spoke of "a Loch Ness monster-type creature (from High Rhulain)" and "a giant sea serpent (from Salamandastron)". If I remember right, these were both the same creature. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Pcboy 17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse that post up there. I got a bit confused. :-(

Pcboy 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they're different. One (The Deepcoiler from Salamandastron) was more of an enormous eel, the one in Deeplough was like a pleisiosaur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.173.109 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The book you are thinking of is the legend of luke as they are traveling down the river to the coast. The painted ones are not magic but just tree rats that paint themselves up to hide in the trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alder57 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

redwall

did you write it during college —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.90 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

yes

Could you please clarify your question? Malinaccier (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Plot Summary" Section

What's with the weird long paragraph about a "deity" in the Redwall series in the plot summary section? I don't understand its place in an encyclopedia article on the series. Frankly, the whole section is rather poor in terms of .. you know, summarizing the plot, but that part in particular just seems completely irrelevant. 24.174.47.208 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was going to comment on. That summary seems pasted from someone's school report on "Christian-style religious binaries in the RedWall books." 206.248.153.210 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Okay... There are dozens of articles in ridiculous detail regarding this book series. Most of them appear to be non-notable (WP:Notability & Wikipedia Notability of books), unreferenced or barely referenced Fancruft. Some people obviously love this book series, but Wikipedia really only needs a basic overview of the major characters in the books, not tons of in-depth lists of minor characters, like a list of all the birds in the series, etc... Rather than diminish the work put into these articles, most of which are probably eligible for deletion, I am proposing that the most important elements of these articles be merged back into the main article for the series, or for the book for which they come. I may have missed a few, but the following articles (while interesting) appear to far exceed what content one expects from an encyclopedia, and as such I have suggested their merger.

Samkim
Thura
Dingeye
Shrew Tribes in Redwall
Birds in Redwall
Otters in Redwall
Arula
Badger Mother
Ferahgo the Assassin
Badger Lord
Klitch

I would prefer if we could reach a consensus, and have somebody who is interested in the series perform the merge. I will perform no further action (other than suggesting merges for other articles I missed) unless and until a consensus is reached, however we as Wikipedians need to have a serious discussion about keeping these articles as-is. If you want to be WP:Bold, you could simply remove the merge tags, however please also participate in the discussion on this talk page. Please discuss below. Happy editing! Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Follows:

• Note: Perhaps an option would be a single listing of characters in the book series, with a brief description of each, either as a standlone article, as a portion of each book article, or as a portion of the main series article. Truth be told, this is so much extra information that figuring out what could be done with it is a difficult proposition. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This merger proposal has been listed on the Wikipedia Proposed Mergers List (WP:PM). Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If they are true characters rather than background, then it is appropriate to have a list containing all of them--a rule that has been used elsewhere is if they are just referred to, but do not have any individual lines of dialog or individual actions of importance, then they should be listed. If, for example, a list of someone's relatives is given but nothing more about them is said, then they're essentially background--what would correspond in a film to non speaking characters, who are not usually listed here, though they would be in a fan wiki. How much should be said, would depend upon their importance. I think the combination articles already existing are the right levels of merger, but that some of the sections within them may be at too great a level of detail, and might be shortened a little, but should not be merged further. I haven't considered the ones about individual characters--but they seem to be sufficiently concise\d to be merged, if there is a target that isnt too general. DGG (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though this talk is kinda outdated I still want to say about this merger proposal. Yeah, the Klitch, Ferahgo, Samkim, Thura, Arula, Dingeye pages should be merged with one of the tribes of redwall pages. The tribes of Redwall pages should be kept because it groups the characters together for research. Having the single character pages is bit too much. So I suggest merging the single character pages into other pages. I will do it myself if you guys agree. Alphasquadron138 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've merged all the individual character articles to the newly created List of characters in Redwall. Please help with cleanup in that article and change any redirects where appropriate. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So have these articles been merged? If so the merge process should be completed on those pages.Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Series DVD availability

Does anyone know why Season 2 of the TV series is so hard to find or very expensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.183.4 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing the Criticism Section

The Criticism section has been flagged as "original research" for over a year now, and contains exactly zero references, or statements as to who made the criticisms. Some of the criticism is utterly trivial (The good guys are able to defeat their enemies with little loss of life? In a children's fantasy series? Unheard of! <\sarcasm>). Any objections if I remove the entire section? 208.65.73.105 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but whoever reverted my edit about there only being one Redwall book in Danish seems just a bit ignorant, or narrow-minded. I am not saying that person who did it is ignorant or narrow-minded, but the action itself. You could just as easily as scratching your neck, have done some Google searches and used Google Translate to find that I am speaking the truth. Also, I believe that it would be better if the mention of Denmark was removed completely instead. I don't think that the Danish translation of only the first book warrants a mention of it in the first place. --Luka1184 (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is only one Danish Redwall book

I am sorry, but whoever reverted my edit about there only being one Redwall book in Danish seems just a bit ignorant, or narrow-minded. I am not saying that person who did it is ignorant or narrow-minded, but the action itself. You could very easily have made a few Google searches and used Google Translate to find some sources (I agree, it was stupid of me to not include some sources or references in the first place, but I was in a hurry. Sorry about that!) Also, I believe that it would be better if the mention of Denmark was removed completely instead. I don't think that the Danish translation of only the first book warrants a mention of it in the first place. --Luka1184 (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who edited it. I didn't just revert it, I added a bit of an explanation to the page, as you can see if you look at the edit history. Anyway, on the official Redwall website, there's an FAQ, and it lists Danish as being one of the languages the series has been translated into. Also, several other languages besides Danish have only had a few of the books translated into them, and I don't think it would be a good idea to remove them from this article just because the whole series wasn't translated into that language. :) Thimbleguy (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Redwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061108165415/http://www.redwall.org:80/dave/opera.html to http://www.redwall.org/dave/opera.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

fansites

According to WP:FANPAGE, "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." ONE fan site was linked, per this policy. The Harry Potter article, also an article about a fantasy series, also links to a similar fan site. Billinghurst has continually removed the link. Explain. -- 2600:1700:4678:F080:C459:14C6:55E3:3ED2 (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"May be appropriate". That a wiki exists for a site does not make it appropriate in itself. That Harry Potter article has a wiki attached does not mean that it is appropriate for this article, and is too simplistic approach. This is an encyclopaedia where consensus of additions is required and in line with the policy Wikipedia:External_links. Justify your addition of that site. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I did justify it. Your argument is worth the word "may." I've cited another article here that links a similar site with no issue. Here's another article that does it. And here's yet another one. Seems appropriate to me. Justify your removal of it. -- 2600:1700:4678:F080:C459:14C6:55E3:3ED2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)