Talk:Goodnight Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Children's literature (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

{{W There's a terrific scene in "The Wire" that is a take-off of this.. I can't believe it's not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) wever, when reprinted in Goodnight Moon, the udder "for caution's sake was reduced to an anatomical blur" to avoid the controversy that E.B. White's Stuart Little had undergone when published in 1945 (Making of Goodnight Moon, 21)." I don't have access to Making of Goodnight Moon, so I can't look on page 21. What WAS the controversy regarding Stuart Little? I have Googled and can't find any reference to a similar controversy; the only Stuart Little controversy I see was whether the idea of a mouse acting like a human would confuse children. (As an aside, how literal and lacking in imagination must critics have been then? Children's literature is packed with anthropomorphized animals.) Was there a controversy about anatomy in an illustration in Stuart Little? If so, describe it rather than alluding mysteriously to it? And, thanks for this article. Gms3591 (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Goodnightmoon.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Hi Im a walrus :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Image:Goodnightmoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


The picture doesn't show up on Facebook... Can somebody fix it? -- (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another parody[edit]

Another parody worthwhile adding?

Goodnight forest moon:

Jdkoftinoff (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Illustration Details[edit]

The following was deleted by another user so I moved it here for discussion. HullIntegrity (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

One aspect of this book is the wealth of detail in the illustrations. Although the entire story takes place in a single room, the careful reader or child will notice numerous details from page to page, including the following:

  • the hands on the two clocks progress from 7 PM to 8:10 PM.
  • the young mouse and kittens wander around the room. The mouse is present in all pages showing the room. The cats ignore the little mouse even when it is very close to them.
  • on each page that features the bunny, he is looking directly at one of the objects mentioned on that page, except for the last page, in which his eyes are closed and only 'noises' are mentioned.
  • the old lady is the only element in the room that is introduced in a black and white illustration.
  • the old lady and her knitting play out a sequence of their own from page to page, starting with the knitting lying on the rocking chair, the old lady sitting in the chair with the ball of yarn on the floor at her feet, the ball farther away and starting to be unraveled by the kittens, the ball unraveled further, the ball entirely rerolled and back on the old lady's lap with the kittens regarding her expectantly, and finally with the lady and the knitting both gone and the kittens sleeping on the rocking chair.
  • the red balloon hanging over the bed disappears in several of the color plates, then reappears at the end.
  • the string of the red balloon is not straight as it should be, given the fact that the balloon is not moving - as though the string is a thin, curling ribbon.
  • the room lighting grows progressively darker.
  • the moon rises in the left-hand window.
  • the socks disappear from the drying rack when only the mittens are being addressed, and then reappear.
  • the open book in the bookshelf is The Runaway Bunny.
  • the book on the nightstand is Goodnight Moon.
  • in the painting of the cow jumping over the moon, the mailbox in the right-hand side of the painting occasionally disappears.
  • in the painting of the three bears, the painting hanging in the bears' room is a painting of a cow jumping over the moon.
  • the painting of the fly-fishing bunny, which appears only in two color plates, appears to be black and white (or otherwise devoid of color). It is very similar to a picture in the book "The Runaway Bunny".
  • the number of books on the bookshelf changes.
  • the pendulum of the bedside clock becomes harder to see as the room dims until it disappears in the final room scene.
  • the curtains have green and yellow stripes throughout the book, but green and red stripes on the cover.
  • the stripes on the bunny's shirt change.
  • in the last page the word 'bunny' is gone off the brush in the dim light.
  • not all items listed at the beginning of the story are told "goodnight" in the book, nor are all things told "goodnight" announced at the beginning.
  • on the last page the mouse has eaten the mush.
  • on the last page the lights in the toy house appear to be mysteriously on (and perhaps on throughout the story, being revealed only by the darkening of the room).
  • the door handle on the doll house is absent on the page that references the little toy house.

I'm in favor of restoring the list of details (not sure that I'd call it 'errata'). I discussed the change briefly with the editor who removed it ([[User::Nikkimaria]]). Nikkimaria stated that it was being removed as trivia, ostensibly as per WP:TRIVIA. I'm not sure that it constitutes trivia as noted there. From my reading, most trivia and trivia-like lists (cultural references, etc.) are deprecated because they are theoretically limitless, tend to be disjointed, and may constitute information that should be better integrated into the article. By contrast, the list of book details in Goodnight Moon is very likely to never get longer, is self-contained (instead of referring the other media, etc.) and, in my opinion, is a significant feature of the book. So far, we've agreed to disagree, but I'd be very interested in other views and reasoning. Royce (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the use of "errata". Maybe there should be an "Illustration" category that serves as the visual version of "Plot Summary". I would really like to work this out as my students will be writing articles in the Fall. HullIntegrity (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Could we restore it under the heading "Illustration Details" or some such? HullIntegrity (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Not without reliable secondary sources indicating the significance of these details. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I wonder (and I AM wondering) how facts\images anyone can actually see on the page differ from plot summary/synopsis. Is't this rather like saying "The Mona Lisa features and image of a woman"? Now, if comments were made about the STYLE of drawing, that would constitute original research but the images in a picture book are part of the plot, no? HullIntegrity (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just for fun: HullIntegrity (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I suppose some of the list could be worked into the Synopsis. HullIntegrity (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Children's books often contain subtle patterns like this in order to encourage children to notice small details. That's why User:HullIntegrity is here. Requiring a secondary source to corroborate that, or categorizing the list of details as trivia, is overly deletionist, in my view. See my reasoning above why I think that this is different from WP:TRIVIA. Is there established Wikipedia policy or style that identifies this specific sort of detail list as regularly subject to deletion, other than WP:TRIVIA (which does not seem to apply)? Further, if such lists are relegated solely to secondary sources, those sources are almost certainly what Wikipedia would classify as "fan" sites. But Wikipedia discourages linking to fan sites. So unless an entire web site dedicated to noting details in children's books emerges, every parent or teacher who wants to tap into this essential feature of children's books will dead-end at Wikipedia, which would be a real shame. Royce (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:MOSFICT: "small details that might be clear on a word-by-word or frame-by-frame analysis – steps well beyond the normal act of reading or watching a work – should be considered original research and excluded from such articles". WP:IINFO: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". By the way, contrary to your assertion, the list does in fact refer to other media. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Point taken. SO relevant/significant info on the images could be worked into the synopsis, correct? (Though "normal act of reading" is very very fuzzy when considering a picture book for kids where a "normal act of reading" is to read it over and over and over, usually by an adult to a pre-literate child.) HullIntegrity (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think I have a real issue here: a "normal act of reading" for a picture book for kids is to read it over and over and over. Usually an adult or older sibling initially reads to a pre-literate child followed by an eventual rereading by the child when they become literate and then, perhaps that grown child to their child. We are not talking War and Peace here where only a scholar would read it more than once. "Normal reading" in this case is repetition and attention to detail. That is why these books even exist as a genre. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Picture books are not by definition fiction (many are not), but they are by definition works of visual art, so I am not sure which rules should apply here. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)