Talk:Twilight (novel series)

Real quotes by Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner & Robert Pattinson from huge Interview Ebook

For all fans and journalists who are interested in quotes from interviews conducted from 2008 to 2011 I want to refer to this e-book:

http://www.amazon.com/Pattinson-Kristen-Stewart-Lautner-ebook/dp/B0068QD1M4/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321881276&sr=8-1-fkmr0

Too much criticism

I think there is too much coverage of the criticism of Twilight in this article and not enough coverage of the positive reviews. Lev Grossman gave Meyers more substantial praise:

The way she manages the reader's curiosity, maintaining tension and controlling the flow of information, is simply virtuosic. She creates a compulsion in the reader that is not unvampiric. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734838,00.html#ixzz2P8tbEFrq

...and Fresh Air book critic Maureen Corrigan praised the first novel for expressing "female longing." There is so much feminist criticism of Twilight in this article that one would think there is no possible feminist take on the books that is positive. I think a nuanced feminist appreciation of Twilight is quite possible. The section on positive reception quickly turns to a discussion of its popularity despite (it is implied) mediocre merit. It would be better to see the saga as an inkblot of where we are as a culture re: sex and gender, with Meyers as the medium who dreamed up an effective metaphor. If the article weren't locked I would add Grossman's praise of Meyers' story telling abilities and perhaps track down the citation to add Corrigan's praise as well. 76.254.21.120 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that they chose Kristen Stewart ro play the role of Bella really offends me since Im the Stewart and I was the one iinfatuated with Jacob long ago and Kristi betrayed me as a sister through my girlish crush and altered everyones lives and now I get beat up for it and treated like less than nothing when I always had feelings for Jacob and Im sick of other people pretending to be me.

Granted this is all fiction since we were kept apart due to Kristi

Although obviously if that hadnt happened jacob wouldnt be such a disappointment as a person mentally I dont think. RCCola115 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

24.109.232.42 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: - You've provided no details of the edit you propose. Begoon ^talk 16:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Twilight (series) → The Twilight Saga – This the both the proper and most common name of the series. Charles Essie (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. No substantiation for nom's claim that proposed title reflects most common name of the series. --В²C ☎ 19:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is the official name of the series that appears on all the book and film covers. Charles Essie (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but you have not substantiated that either. Link? Anyway, the name most commonly used in reliable sources is far more important, and that's presumed to be the current title until shown otherwise (proposer/supporters have burden of proof). --В²C ☎ 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Born2cycle When you say "No substantiation for nom's claim" is this because you have checked and know that there is "No substantiation for the nom's claim" or because "No substantiation has as yet been presented for the nom's claim" or something else? GregKaye 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • None has been presented; I have no idea if any exists. If the substantiation exists; it should be cited, so N participants don't have to go looking for it when one nom can do it. If it doesn't exist, there should be no proposal. Most moves are either obvious or substantiation is provided. I'm willing to consider changing my !vote upon presentation of compelling evidence supporting the commonly used claim in the nom. Of course. --В²C ☎ 22:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until evidence is provided per В²C. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Twilight (novel series), since the film series is also a series. The franchise article should be created at The Twilight Saga, and not move the novel series -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Twilight Saga, though the nominator should've done research, so could you have, B2C. Like, erm, the official website being http://www.thetwilightsaga.com/. WP:NATURAL leads me to support. I would now like to ping FoCuSandLeArN and GregKaye, and bop Charles Essie on the head with a trout for making me put "http://www.thetwilightsaga.com/" into my browser history - eww. Red Slash 16:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm deeply sorry. I hate also hate The Twilight Saga, I tried watching the first film and I simply couldn't finish it. Charles Essie (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Even if I were willing to visit that website, that's hardly a reliable source. There's nothing wrong with the current parenthetic disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 02:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: the burden of proof is always on the proponent. That notwithstanding, how the producers named the film adaptations is not a viable rationale. We need to examine how the RS treat the works; if that is The Twilight Saga then so be it, but so far I'm unaware if it is. It looks as if people are letting their fanatism take over their editing. Is everyone here new to move discussions? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Red Slash do whatever it now takes and thanks for taking one for the team GregKaye 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Brah, anything for the 'pedia. I'm sure I'll get another man card someday... ... ... Red Slash 23:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume that was a joke, FoCuSandLeArN? Please tell me that was a joke. Also, could you read WP:NATURAL and tell me what you think about the move afterwards? Red Slash 23:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I the one that needs to take some crazy pills here? Nom stated "the proper and most common name of the series" but provided no evidence. В²C subsequently requested said evidence, a comment which I logically seconded. I'm still awaiting said evidence. If and when it is provided I'll proceed to review it. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN: Well, Greg, B2C and I are three of probably the top ten people in all of Wikipedia with experience in move requests. I'm not sure I've ever seen you around one (this is not intended as an insult, I just don't remember seeing that name before). That's why I assumed you were joking. As for evidence, well, the official name clearly contains "Saga", and I provided a source. That's good enough to move as is barring evidence to the contrary, per WP:NATURAL. Red Slash 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Article traffic statistics show similar pageviews for both Twilight (series) and The Twilight Saga (film series), so there is no clear primary topic. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  And when we don't have a clear choice based on popularity, we go to WP:NATURAL and pick the title without parentheses, right, Sovereign Sentinel? Red Slash 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Red Slash: Again, you did not provide evidence, you provided the official website of the works (which is pulling our legs). We require evidence that the RS treat them more commonly as The Twilight Saga. I've performed a perfunctory search and series returns almost 3 times the results (in news sources such as reviews) as the term saga does. Do you have any solid arguments to support the move or will you just continue to link acronyms we're all familiar with? You're forgetting the overarching principle of that exact same policy that states: generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. Note: I'm not discussing the use of parentheses, I'm discussing the action of moving. If you want to propose Twilight (series) → Twilight series, please do. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  FoCuSandLeArN: NO WE DO NOT require evidence for the one being more commonly used than the other if the less common one is naturally disambiguated and the more common one is not. Have you still not read WP:NATURAL? I really, really could not care less about the move in either direction, but I feel like I'm going crazy referencing our rules to someone who suggested that I was the one who was new to move discussions. Have you still not read WP:NATURAL? How then do you think the no-parentheses title has to be as common as the title with parentheses, when that policy explicitly states: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." We virtually always have a preference for parentheses-free titles, which means we don't need full equality of RS usage. Red Slash 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Again, as I pointed out above, I'm not talking about the use of parentheses. Do what you will. I'm tired of this futile back and forth. My !vote remains. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment while http://stepheniemeyer.com/twilightseries.html consistently presents twilight as a series, a search on site:http://stepheniemeyer.com/ saga present 57 results amongst 96 pages immediately providing quotes such as "As the author of the Twilight Saga, I control the copyright and it is up to the owner of the copyright to decide when the books should be made" and "the second book in the Twilight Saga,".

I would like to see a move to something like either: Twilight (book series) or The Twilight Saga (book series) as the current title is not disambiguated from The Twilight Saga (film series). Ngrams show that, while references to book, novel and fiction have remained in proportion with each other, proportionate uses of "book series" have dramatically increased. GregKaye 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. If my understanding is correct, The Twilight Saga is the name of the film series. With the books, it only seems to get use with The Twilight Saga: The Official Illustrated Guide. In any case, Twilight is the common name of the book series (and most likely the film series too, but that's neither here nor now). Chase (talk | contributions) 14:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, even if we were to move the article, it would not be the primary topic over The Twilight Saga (film series) – 80% of the films bear that prefix, compared to none of the books – and would need to be titled The Twilight Saga (book series). In any case, Twilight (series) is more concise; I wouldn't oppose a move to Twilight (book series). Chase (talk | contributions) 14:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's not the name of the book series. ONR (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Twilight (novel series). (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Twilight (series) → Twilight (book series) – Just as The Twilight Saga (film series) has specific disambiguation to prevent readers from confusing it with the book series, this article should have specific disambiguation to prevent readers from confusing it with the film series. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. And then what? Twilight (series) becomes a dab page? Most people will Google and click on the desire link. But, the few who might arrive here somehow (how?) looking for the film series, the hatnote link will set them straight. --В²C ☎ 01:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support WP:PRECISE Ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. The current title fails WP:AT by not being precise enough to identify the topic of the article, there being multiple series called "Twilight". The current title should point to the disambiguation page Twilight (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The alternate name "Twilight (novel series)" proposed below is preferable for me, but the current nomination is also acceptable. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support no one types in (foo) anyway, this is of ease to mobile readers, B2C comment above should be ignored as a long long long history of opposing recognizable and distinct titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per 67.70.32.190. В²C Twilight (series) Currently receives an arguably inflated 862 links from other Wikipedia namespaces. I doubt that anyone would turn it into a dab page. GregKaye 09:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So it would remain a redirect to the new title? Then what's the point of the move? --В²C ☎ 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Twilight (series) could point to The Twilight Saga (dab page). Chase (talk | contributions) 01:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move, but oppose any redirection of Twilight (series) to any title including "The Twilight Saga", as "The Twilight Saga" refers solely to the films. ONR (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. WP:Precice and Recognizability. Redirect the current to Twilight (disambiguation), the very few who land there could be looking for multiple things on that disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Happy to go Twilight (novel series), per WP:BOOKDAB. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Consider that on Wikipedia both "novel series" and "book series" are used. Which is better suited? — the Man in Question (in question) 23:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Book series" is more normal. ngram

According to definitions in the articles, Book series and Novel series-->Novel sequence, for these books "book series" would be correct and "novel series" incorrect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, "book" is a less specific word than "novel", so it's going to be more common. "Cow" is more common than "angus", but sometimes it's going to be more correct to say "angus". And "novel series" as a redirect to "novel sequence" is a poor redirect and should be rectified; the determining word in that case is "sequence", not "novel". "Book series" doesn't bother me, but "novel series" makes more sense to me; after all, most encyclopedias are "book series", and that's not what's being referred to here. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BOOKDAB recommends "book" for non-fiction books, so "(novel series)" would be more appropriate. In fact, per your links, that seems to be how book series vs. novel series is currently delineated on Wikipedia, save a couple of exceptions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Also note that we have Category:Novel series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Twilight (novel series). "Series" is insufficient as there is also a film series, but per WP:BOOKDAB "book" in disambiguation is usually reserved for non-fiction works. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - As it stands now having "series" with nothing else is extremely confusing (IE could mean TV, Film, Book or Web Series), I would also say Book sounds better than Novel. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to "Twilight (novel series)" per WP:BOOKDAB and since there is no primary topic for "series" with the books and films being equally prominent. "Twilight (series)" can redirect to Twilight (disambiguation). Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Twilight (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090129085544/http://astrology.yahoo.com:80/channel/parenting/oh-no-not-twi-moms-355795/ to http://astrology.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/oh-no-not-twi-moms-355795/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100619022648/http://www.creationent.com/cal/twilight_az.htm to http://www.creationent.com/cal/twilight_az.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Twilight (novel series)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I just found one factual error in the text. Edward never messes with Bella's car so she can't go see her friend. Her dad is paranoid that she is going to sneak out one night so he disconnects the battery in her truck. Edward simply makes Bella aware, in the morning, that he heard Charlie re-attaching the battery cables. On page 299 of Twilight, is when Bella says that Charlie thinks she is sneaking out and on page 313, Edward tells her that Charlie had left for work after reattaching her battery.

Substituted at 22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Twilight (novel series). 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/20101208090236/http://www.collider.com:80/2010/08/03/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-2-release-date-november-16-2012-release-date to http://www.collider.com/2010/08/03/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-2-release-date-november-16-2012-release-date
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201143401/http://meridianmagazine.com/books/080806vampire.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/080806vampire.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615075733/http://thetwilightsaga.com/page/the-twilight-saga-the-official to http://thetwilightsaga.com/page/the-twilight-saga-the-official
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223171500/http://news-briefs.ew.com:80/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html to http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Twilight (novel series). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collider.com/2010/08/03/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-2-release-date-november-16-2012-release-date
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902202116/http://chbookstore.qwestoffice.net/fa2006-08.html to http://chbookstore.qwestoffice.net/fa2006-08.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/07/01/eclipse-opening-breaks-records/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Source on 750,000 Book deal?

Sorry if Im just being dumb but the source (21) for the amount of her first book deal just links to a Harry Potter article. It has no mention of Twilight or this amount. I dont even think the article has an embedded video. Please delete this if im wrong!