Talk:Agatha Christie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Agatha Christie was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 22, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
March 10, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article


The previous discussions have been archived [[Talk:Agatha_Christie/Archive_1|he--Calimero54 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)re]] as per Wikipedia’s talk archiving policies. Wikieditors are invited to peruse the archive before starting a new discussion to determine if any issue of interest is dealt with therein. This current Talk page is for starting new discussions not covered in the archive, or for re-visiting older issues. The archive itself is not to be edited. Happy reading!— SpikeToronto (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have got long again. I've added in Misabot so archiving should be automated from now on. Kiore (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

List of writings / Bibliography[edit]

I could not find a link to Agatha Christis bibliography in any sensible location within the article which I regard as an odd and frustrating omission. I was also unable to find any guidance about where such a link belongs. I have created a new section called "List of Writings" (rather than Bibliography to avoid confusion) and put a link to her Bibliography page here for now. I have looked at other Author's pages and found this to be a rather inconsistent feature of most pages; for example P.G. Wodehouses page has a clear section with link to his bibliography while Terry Pratchett's has no obvious link. My feeling is that this is core information about an authour and should be easy to find. It could go in the See Also section, but seems too relevant to the topic as the author's bibliography is basically their lifes work (which is what actually makes them noteworthy in the first place). While I prefer it's own brief section to make it easier to find, I suppose it could also be the first link within writings? I am open to suggestions. DomUK (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Citations a mess?[edit]

I see no need to have a Sources section when there is already a References section. That's more than a little redundant. I'll see if I can fix some of them, but it would be ideal to move all those listed under Sources to References and then delete Sources completely. Wouldn't you agree? Also, there were 28 references to a single book throughout this article and each reference was separated under the References section. That was ridiculous! All that does is clog the references up. I combined them into a single reference and still kept page numbers intact. FYI for those of you who are unsure about the code on that. It goes like this:

<ref name="">{{cite book |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn= |access-date= }}</ref>{{rp|enter page number here}}

Then repeated citations thereafter would be like this:

<ref name=""/>{{rp|enter page number here}}

MagnoliaSouth (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this information needed?[edit]

"Mallowan introduced her to wine, which she never enjoyed – preferring to drink water in restaurants. She tried unsuccessfully to make herself like cigarettes by smoking one after lunch and one after dinner every day for six months." ~ AmazingAlec (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like it to me. I also wonder about this: "He soon developed a romantic relationship with Clara, and they were married in April 1878". It's already been mentioned that Clara met "her future husband" -is it necessary to say he :developed a romantic relationship"? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, they're both unnecessary. I've removed them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


"she remains the most-translated individual author – having been translated into at least 103 languages."

There are individual books that have been translated into way more languages than 103, so I don't know how that is true.... (

Maybe you mean to say that she has a large number of novels and many of them have a huge number of translations. And if you add up all of these translation she has a total surpassing all other authors? If so, to get that idea across the sentence would have to reworded. (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Half of the 2 billion sales of her works were translations, per the Agatha Christie web site. Her web site claims 44 languages, but Guinness in 1976 said 103. "Most translated author" seems clear enough to me. The discussion on sales and translations has been included in the section Critical Reception; previously it was only in the lead, and the lead should be the summary or highlights of the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)