Template talk:Richard Matheson

Problems
The navbox is massive and seems to not be abiding by the idea of what a navbox should be about: navigation. See WP:NAVBOX.

It can't just be a wrapper for his bibliography and should be stripped back to mainly links, which would address the problem of its size.

There is also the whiff of original research about it - "The Splendid Source" might say it is based on Matheson's story of the same name but there is no mention of this in the body of the text. only in the infobox and a caption to a picture - neither of which are sourced. Neither is the mention of this in the Matheson article. (Emperor (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC))


 * (Emperor, I started a discussion the same time as you, haha.) This template seems like overkill and has multiple disadavantages, including being oversized and taking up too much space for tangentially related information and having very few blue links. I think that the first step should be to focus the template on adaptations of of works by Richard Matheson; this seems like it will have the most blue links. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Brilliant minds and all ;) What it looks like is someone took the bibliography from his page, reformatted it and jammed it into a template (it still had some of the same formatting quirks and wording which I ironed out in my edit).
 * Things to do:
 * Change the name to just "Richard Matheson" - no need to get too specific at the top
 * Remove anything that isn't a link to something specific (and possibly remove those with the whiff of original research like the Family Guy one).
 * Break it down into novels, short stories, screenplays (perhaps splitting up film and TV if there are enough of each) and adaptations (for the films that were based on his books that he didn't write the screenplays for - he seems largely to have adapted his own stories for the Twilight Zone episodes but not most of the films.
 * It should be fairly straightforward as the links are in there, just buried in a tonne of text. (Emperor (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I was bold, as I had the idea in my head. See what you think - it can always be reverted. What amazed me where the ommissions too, so it has worked out well from a cleaning up and expanding direction. (Emperor (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Just noticed that you updated the template! It looks great. I have no qualms about it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. I've now been through all the articles and assured they have the navbox and that all the categories are right (so have done a little shuffling around there). Everything looks much better I think. (Emperor (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC))
 * As Emperor said at the top of this discussion, the purpose of the box should be navigation. To this end, I am removing "Hell at the White House" added 20:17, 2 April 2013‎ by anon 201.19.104.247.  This story does not have a Wiki article, and adding it to the template does not serve the purpose of navigation. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)