Talk:Cards on the Table

Novels: Crime Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Crime task force (assessed as High-importance).

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

reference to Sherlock Holmes[edit]

As per Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels#Missing clues the reference section should be extended. CapnZapp (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ending[edit]

Sorry, but where's the ending? The Plot section only leads so far as to the actual buildup....too much suspense here...Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote the play?[edit]

The Stage adaption section is missing vital information, like for example who wrote it... --Nedergard (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?[edit]

This article is, in my opinion, not too long.Ramloser 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Collier and Son[edit]

I have a US edition of this book published in 1936 by P.F. Collier and Son. This book was published by more than the Collins Crime Club and Dodd, Mead and Company, and it was published in the US by Collier *before* the Dodd, Mead and co publication. The Collier publication is 11/30/1936 according to listings I find for the book online. I can find little else about this edition of the book, and it sells for significantly less than other contemporary editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.178.39 (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually new topics are started at the end of the page, so I moved this section down. You are free to expand the Publication history section. Fantastic Fiction is a useful website for this task. Prices of older editions has not been a topic in the novels articles that I have read. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cards on the Table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208235111/http://agathachristie.com:80/story-explorer/stories/cards-on-the-table-1/ to http://www.agathachristie.com/story-explorer/stories/cards-on-the-table-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked link found by bot in Wayback machine. Also added second link to Agatha Christie site, which was reorganized. --Prairieplant (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary reverted[edit]

GUtt01, this habit of reverting reasonably good plot summaries is not friendly, nor respecting the work of other editors. You totally replaced the plot summaries of three novels by Agatha Christie, including this novel. Your replacements are not better than what was there, in my judgment. Your revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cards_on_the_Table&diff=840599335&oldid=840481019 began a string of changes by you, to fix the errors in what you had done. I am sure other editors will pass by and find more errors. It is good you have such confidence in your own writing, but this is meant to be a collegial effort. With most novels, the work needed is in finding reviews and adding them to the article. This is not the case with Agatha Christie, whose articles have mainly included reviews at the time of publication, reviews from a book about all her novels written after she died, and specifics on publication history where it is interesting – this work was all done by earlier editors. The main effort that is left is an accurate and concise plot summary, or to leave the article alone. I let your other total rewrites of the plot summary go, not because they were better, but because I thought the this novel's summary was most important of the three. I ask with due respect that you stop this practice if you cannot work in a collegial fashion. I cannot agree that your rewrites are so much better than what was there, as to offer you thanks for the effort, and I do not like having to pick through for errors of the story, errors of spelling, and so on. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]