Tolkien Gateway

Template talk:Chrono

Why this simple template? A reader of such a (minor) article as Christie's Valuable Manuscripts and Printed Books 7 June 2006 is likely interested in finding the main article Writings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Right now it's too difficult to access that latter page. The reader would have to either:

  1. know how to use "What links here" in order to find the main article
  2. have enough knowledge of the structure of TG to know about the main article
  3. access the main article through the Portal:Books

The template doesn't look so neat right now, but how do you like the idea? I would like add the template too all articles on publications by JRRT (perhaps except for the main works, The Hobbit, The LotR, etc). --Morgan 10:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So is it just a template containing a list of publications by date?
I have two concerns which are more based on the design: 1) How long/tall will it be/how many publications will it include? 2) Will it be floating below infoboxes, pictures etc? I have always admired this template, although it is also rather large. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
1) None (?). It's only meant to include a link to Writings by J.R.R. Tolkien. It could, of course, also be more like the WP template (which is nice), although it couldn't include all publications as they are too many.
2) I'm not sure.

--Morgan 13:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see; I didn't fully understand the concept. If it's just a link to that article, we could edit Template:Book to include it on certain publications? That way it would be less intrusive? "See also" could do the job a lot of the time, too. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea with adding the concept to an already existing template - I don't want the link to be intrusive, but still easy to find (sort of to make the article part of a series - that is "Writings by J.R.R. Tolkien"). (This also brings to mind that we have two different book templates.) Yeah, I thought of "See also" too. Hm, it's hard to decide... --Morgan 15:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Good Idea! --Amroth 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Did we come to any conclusions on this? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)