Template talk:The Black Stallion

Books

The Black Stallion link doesn't need to be in the template twice. Create an article on the book series (The Black Stallion (book series) maybe) for it to have it's own section.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That artiecle already exists. I and I moved the link, not copied it. I will move it back again, as any links should primarily be placed inside the list, not the title of the navbox. And since consensus is not in your favor, it would be better if you do not revert again. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for either way so don't act like there is.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The format for every single other template of the same type must be wrong then.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

What other templates? Each subject has their own range of topics. There is no set rule for those. As for consensus... two editors have opposed you edits. So yes, there is at least some consensus. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Listing the book series in its own section seems very reasonable, and educational. I loved the movie, and coming to the movie page I learned it was also a book series, read that page, and learned quite a bit more about this project. Template style is actually quite open-ended, and that has benefitted the wonderful and helpful templates on the site. In this case listing the books in a section adds value to the template, so it seems like the way to go to me. Just one editor's opinion though. I haven't ridden a horse in 20 years, and never at a full gallop, so I'm humbled a bit just to come to the Black Stallion pages and give an opinion. Thanks. And to TheMovieBuff, wow, you love templates maybe more than I do. A wonderful list on your user page, thank you for all of your great work! Randy Kryn 21:48 20 December, 2014 (UTC)

The book series is actually the far more important thing and critical to emphasize in the template (as the title alone doesn't indicate to the reader that it links to the books -- we boomer-era horse lovers read those things until the covers fell off! To not make it blatently clear that the movies were derived from a significant book series - and a series of many, many more books than were ever put to film (only the first two books were made into films, and both deviated significantly from the books in quite a few ways) - I would note {{Harry Potter}} as a precedent that makes it quite clear that the books are equally as important as the movies. Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)