Template talk:Twilight

Template changes

Just a note about why I changed the template; due to the mass amount of merges at List of Twilight characters, it will be easier to use this template. The characters with articles will be displayed in one row, while a link to an entire character list is found, along with a link to the sections explaining vampires and shapeshitfers/werewolves. This also gets rid of the minor character bit, which was crowded and full of characters that really weren't that important. Anyone can change it back if they want to, but personally I think it's less busy and will be easier to navigate. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have all the main characters (Jacob, Bella, and the Cullens) listed by name, as their importance to the series doesn't denote them an article, but it should have a place as an important character in the series. Only having that characters who have articles at the moment listed might be kind of confusing, since it seems to just be randomly picked Cullens that are still on the list, and having all the main characters will help people be able to navigate easier. It might also spare us a lot of "OMG! THEY DON'T HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT JASPER??!!!! I SHOULD RITE 1!!!!". ~ Bella Swan^? 12:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll fix it now. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New Moon (film)

Stop adding a reference to New Moon film. It is not a complete article, just a sub section. "Legolas" (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Other books"

Should we just remove the "other books" section and move "Midnight Sun (unpublished)" to the novels section? ς ح д r خ є 03:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote yes. Andrea (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done ^{how did you beat me to this? :P} ς ح д r خ є 01:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Columns

Does this really work for the template? It looks a little awkward because there aren't that many articles for the other groups. This isn't like {{Harry Potter}} where there are four links per column plus many, many other links in the template.

~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think the old template was more suitable. If Twilight ever expands so much that a more elaborate template is necessary, as with Harry Potter, then it could be changed. But for now it just looks ridiculously empty. Andrea (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm reverting the template to its old state until there is enough reason to keep the columns besides "{{Harry Potter}} did it". ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fifth column

I added a small, fifth, still-blank column to be expanded and used for the projected finale of the series.--75.45.143.44 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is explained clearly in The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn that there will be one film. However, it will be split into two separate parts. Comparable to Harry Potter. Its one film. But two parts. Therefore, it is listed as "Film" and there will be two subsections (I guess that is what it is called): One for Soundtrack I and one for Soundtrack II. There is no need to make separate articles on the film, as expressed on the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) talk page. There is no reason to come to another census on what was already established on the SAME EXACT issue with a different film.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I stand corrected. Even though film series' installments are released in separate years and merit distinct coverage in the media and respective reviews by the critics, they don't receive individual treatments on Wikipedia. No. Wait. Now that I've checked, it happens that in such cases as "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy," where multi-installment series have merited unified treatments, the separate films have merited individual treatments as well!

“The breaking up of “Breaking Dawn” follows other cinematic literary adaptations that have been divided into two films, including “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” (which will be released in two parts in 2010 and 2011) and “The Hobbit” (planned as two films for 2011 and 2012).”----11 June, NY TIMES

--75.45.143.44 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to deleted portal removed

The Twilight portal (and its successor, Twilight (novel series)) were recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)