Talk:Sugar Creek Gang

AFD tag
I'm looking to remove that tag, but major edit is on the page. Feel free to remove it. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I took the liberty of adding the Old AFD template here on the talk page too :) hope that is ok --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommendations for improvement
I am glad to see that a bibliography was started for the original series by User:tmorton166. At the present time, the article could stand some good copyedits to incorporate or document the evolution of the books into all its media and include the new series which at this time might not be notable enough for a stand-alone article. There are a couple of more Google books available that cite the original author and mention the books that also should be worked into the article. If I could be so WP:BOLD, I would recommend that the table also have two tabs: one for ISBN and another for IMDb/movie status. That way, the original notes could be used to document anything outstanding or notable that wouldn't fall in the main tabs/categories.

To summarize, here are my recommendations (please feel to add or make suggestions):
 * 1) Copyedit
 * 2) Modify bibliography table
 * 3) Add Google book citations
 * 4) Incorporate all media to include the new series. moreno oso (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Add "new gang" member descriptions ala the original series (and in the same format) moreno oso (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Traditionally the book list goes immediately after series description. I think as the books are the basis for the entire article that is appropriate in this case - how do you feel about moving it back up (also bibliography is not usually used for the heading in such articles. I feel Original Series may be more appropriate/in line with other articles)? I feel it should at least be above reading list. If we are going ot deal with both gangs it may be appropriate to make two master sections (Original and Modern series) and put tables/descriptions below them?
 * I used to do it that way but a couple of articles that I've created recently had the bibliography moved when the B class checklist was run by an admin. I'm okay with either way. And, I look upon this as a collobarative effort. Let's all chip in; change or copyedit section titles, words, etc until we "get it right". I don't know who made the comment in the AfD about this possibly turning into something better or words to that effect but I enjoy seeing this article being developed. moreno oso (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that the table also have two tabs: one for ISBN and another for IMDb/movie status - good idea. One downside is that the books appear to have been published numerous times. The original publications are unlikely to have ISBN's due to their age. I started the table with the intention it could be expanded so I entirely approve of this. A brief plot summary may be appropriate too.
 * I agree that a short plot would be helpful. One or two lines at best. moreno oso (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thoughts? :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed that the "new gang" series is lacking the characters' descriptions. It would be informative to have that too. moreno oso (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)