WikiNarnia talk:Cleanup

Beast Project, pt. 1

 * The Next Big Project: Massively reducing the number of individual articles on animals by massively merging them into the articles "talking beast" and "dumb beast". If there are enough disputes, we may end up renaming these two or merging them back together once more. Many of us now know the harm of making multitudes of conjectural or blatantly non-canonical articles about animals. The purpose of this project is to eliminate the majority of animal-related pages by including all the information on the aforementioned "beast" pages. Wolfdog: Narnia Wiki administrator 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessary to delete all the animal pages, just the animals that are rarely mentioned. For instance, Polar Bears don't need a full article, but Donkey should remain (an extremely important character, Puzzle, was a donkey). Arvan Swordwielder | Talk | Contributions 05:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically articles about species with specific plot involvement should remain. Poggin 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Arvan Swordwielder | Talk | Contributions 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally disagree: in order to maintain the security and cleanliness of this wiki (to prevent users from once again making copious articles about every single creature canonical or non-canonical), it is better to condense them all into a single article that can be easily maintained, cleaned up, and watched over. Otherwise, I believe, there will be more arguments among users about what is considered significant versus insignificant, etc. Additionally, admins may have to go about continually deleting and potentially even re-deleting articles that are being disputed. It is more efficient to have everything ordered under one convenient article. Wolfdog: Narnia Wiki administrator 21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But don't some species deserve their own articles? For example, mice are very important. They have their own story of how they became talking beasts, different from all the other animals, and Reepicheep is a historic figure in Narnia terms. Rain Thalo 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right! Also, you don't want an extremely long article, as Beast will become. 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Beast will probably become huge, but I can only envision once again people simply creating articles about animals that "seem like they'd be in Narnia" or that "ought to be in Narnia", or giving completely conjectural names to creatures found only in the movie versions. Perhaps only animals that are strictly found on Narnia (and not also Earth) should have their own pages. But this is just a suggestion. Wolfdog: Narnia Wiki administrator 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that we're all wrong and all right. I recommend that our policy be that the most important of Narnia/Earth creatures (Donkey, Mouse, etc.) be the only full articles made, and the creatures strictly Narnian should also have full pages (Dryad, Centaur, etc.)
 * And to keep the Beast article from becoming huge, if a particular animal cannot be found in any of the books, mentioned by name (not appearing in the pictures, but in the text), then it should be removed from the article. And I suppose we should let animals clearly seen in the films in, too, with a disclaimer that it is purely film info. Rain Thalo 22:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ~Arvan
 * Glad to hear it. I think the same should go for taking beasts, too. --Rain

Beast Project, pt. 2
Well we'd better get started. First off all, we are going to eliminate the category "Species" (or "Narnian species") and replace it with a new category: "Beast." If you go to "Category:Species" you will see a list of all animals under that category. Those that remain worthy (for example, baboon is not worthy) will be re-categorised under "Category:Beasts". Wolfdog: Narnia Wiki administrator 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I love this plan, but I have a suggestion to make about the small dispute above. Instead of creating articles for prominent "beasts" as a species, what about just make sure that those creatures named or with a part to play have an article. For example, have Donkey listed on the beast page, but not have it's own page, while Puzzle of course would. When you think about it, what information is going to be on the Donkey page that doesn't have to do with Puzzle? Likewise Bree, Hwin and Strawberry get their own pages but not Horse. For the mice, we have Reep of course, and a mention there about his ancestors on the Stone Table would be prudent. If those mice carry enough character to have their own page then so be it, but personally I think that the article would be too small/short, and their mentions of Reep and Aslan's pages would do them justice enough. Just my thoughts. =) Queenlucythevaliant 00:38, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really must say I'm against this, We're supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. I never liked this idea. ArvanSwordwielderSig.png●ArvanSwordwielderSigTalk.png
 * There is a difference though between comprehensiveness and redundancy. And many of these articles do not perhaps have enough information to support their creation. Better to have one substantial article than dozens of pages with very scant information, at least in my opinion. Queenlucythevaliant 00:01, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

02:13, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of Donkey you have a point. But Cheetah doesn't have a character, they just appear in the movies. Or Faun. ~Arvan

Also, how far does it go. It is said that Unicorns are magical beasts and probably have always had the gift of speech and thinking. That would technically make them worthy of their own page. But, as for the dumb beasts, I agree to an extent. There are very notable characters whom are of the dumb beast ancestory and without these notable characters the story line doesn't work. Those most notable dumb beasts should keep their pages! Stoopsklan 23:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)