Talk:Noughts & Crosses (novel series)

Copied from author article, pre-split

Shouldn't the entensive book descriptions should be split off into their own articles? Jessicapierce 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. They should. Go ahead. Be bold. Random Passer-by 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll split the article when the copy edit/expansion/etc is done. Random Passer-by 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I did it last night. Look for article under book title "Noughts & Crosses". It's going to need intro material, references and etc. I'm not sure what the WikiCustom is regarding articles devoted to telling an author's idea blow by blow without benefit of the author's own words or skill. Wiki Project "Novel"? Deeply ambivalent about this...
~ Otterpops 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to follow the WikiProject Novels guidelines for articles on individual novels. I don't know of any guidelines for series so I went to look at a few examples for ideas of best practice. I tend to be in favour of plot summaries being merely summaries, as the name suggests (like cover blurb but a less advertorial style), with as few spoilers as possible while retaining narrative coherence. I was expecting the information which was split off to be subsequently edited down in length otherwise I'd have suggested beginning three or four separate novel articles too. It's open for discussion and experimentation though as far as I'm concerned. As long as the finished products are readable by the age group which Blackman's books are aimed towards! Random Passer-by 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, oh my dear, do you have the gall to chop that thing down though? Someone got very excited about telling every detail of that whole novel(s), they loved that book. You may get resistance. Good luck!
I'm going to move these discussion sections (copies of them) over onto the Noughts & Crosses discussion page so all bold souls have some sense of what's going on.
~ Otterpops 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I'll edit everything down to the last jot and tittle (when I can find the time). The problem here is that I haven't read the novels recently enough to trust my memory so I can only work with what's there. Expanding the character list a little should be easy enough though. Random Passer-by (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Knife Edge

The Knife Edge section is really not looking too good, very uninformative, and unprofessional. I have cleaned up a few of the typos, and I'm not really sure that "suitable for kids over 12" is an acceptable ending either. Is there anyone who knows the plotline of this book in greater depth, and would be willing to improve the article? I'd do it myself but unfortunately I know very little of the book --LyraLight 11:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about "suitable for kids over 12". Feel free to edit it out if someone else doesn't get there first. :-) Random Passer-by (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff 19 March 2008

There is a play of the first book performed by the royal shakespeare company on in cardiff on March 19th. Can someone add it to the article? Im not sure where it should go. User:FreemDeem 19:35, 13 March 2008 (edit

Double Cross

"The book Double Cross can be read first, as it doesn't give away too much of the other books and it isn't too difficult to understand."

They are meant to be read in order, and it does give stuff away, such as the people and plot involved. My main problem is, why is this sentence included in the encyclopedia? - DeMoN2008 20:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

crosses or Crosses

Article is a bit inconsistent about capitalisation. Do the novels stick to one or the other, if so this should be mentioned in the article and used throughout. John a s (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)