Talk:Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Agatha Christie.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2008. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

sourcing issues

Are there any sources from which the article was written from?--Martin925 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the source from which from was written the article from, from there therefrom the source from article writing from it. From Murder on the Orient Express therefrom sourced was the article contribution from. That is to say, from Agatha Christie from all sources written from provided from therefrom from. Indeed, any sources there are. 198.49.180.40 21:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:A. The answer above, though hardly coherent, is correct: the article is crammed with reliable, previously published, sources, i.e. books by Agatha Christie. Testbed 05:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coherency of the question was reflected in the answer. 198.49.180.40 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I can't find an "argument" in the article (it's just a list), it sticks to the rules of NOR

Testbed 04:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot device

Most of the things listed here are not in fact plot devices; they are recurring plot elements (possibly rising to the level of plot cliche) but a plot device is something whose entire purpose is to advance the plot. A 'twist ending' for example is not a plot device, it is a plot element. Can we rename this article? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. There is no need for the entire page to be deleted, simply retitle it something such as 'Elements of Agatha Cristie Novels.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.90.222 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this article?

This entire article smacks of a how-to, ie: how to read Agatha Christie. Also, the anonymous editor's comment above is a very good point. It should probably be deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cards on the Table, False Corpses and Subsequent Murder, WHOOPS!

In the subsection 'False Corpses and Subsequent Murder', there's a bit of an error. It says that the murderer tells a maid that the sleeping victim is dead, then kills him -- but that's not what happens in the book. In the book, the murderer takes advantage of an exciting hand of bridge (from which nobody's attention would be distracted), and takes a risk that the man would wake up -- stabbing him in his sleep.

Luckily for the murderer, the poor victim doesn't wake up upon being stabbed. But there was no maid involved -- instead, another guest (a young woman) later on, when it's her turn to be dummy, notices the knife embedded in the man, but rather than alert people and arouse suspicions she says nothing about it, leaving the novel's main protagonist, Hercule Poirot, to discover it. This really should be changed. 72.234.50.130 (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not correct. This is a reference to what happens later on in Cards on the Table, after the murder of Mr Shaitana has taken place. The murderer kills one of the other suspects, hoping to make it look like suicide and thus deflect suspicion.203.31.52.137 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second chambermaid in The Thirteen Problems?

I've just read The Thirteen Problems, but none of them has a second chambermaid entering a hotel suite in full view without being noticed. I do recall this plot from many years ago, but it must be somewhere else. Occultations (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - it's in Miss Marple Tells a Story, according to [1]. I can't find a definitive reference, but it's definitely not in The Thirteen Problems. Occultations (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this or that "contentious?"

I find the author's use of the word contentious confusing. It appears three times, used in a way that is not at clear as to why the word contentious is appropriate or meaningful.

Under heading "Invisible Staff:"

This is a somewhat contentious trope on Christie’s part, ...

And twice under heading "Secret Identities & Impersonation:"

Another contentious trope used repeatedly in Christie’s work is the concealment of identity.

and

... Cora Lansquenet makes a contentious remark about her brother's death, ...

If contentious ordinarily means "promoting argument or quarrelling," then how may a plot element or plot device be contentious? Who is supposed to be quarrelling because of the "contentious trope?" How can a trope promote quarrelling, unless, perhaps, it's among novelists or literary critics? And, if the latter is meant, which novelists? Which critics? And why would they find the contentious trope to promote a quarrel?

The third use of the word contentious may tell us that a character's remark in the context of the novel proves to promote a quarrel. I don't remember, not having read that novel in decades.

Still, the appearance of the word "contentious" three times in an article so brief makes the word to stand out as if it had significance that -- after all -- is not at all clear to the reader. Rhooop (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article unsourced

The idea that this article is sourced in Christie's work is ridiculous. Who decided that these 'tropes' - better called cliches - are in fact tropes? And Wikipedia article is not original research - it should cite and summarize published research.

There are cases cited once. How is one usage a cliche? And why no examples of other writers reusing Christie's 'tropes?' This is not a proper Wikipedia article - it's pure OR. Without reference to published work discussing Christie's work, the article should be dumped.

MarkinBoston (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me the article is a helpful summary of some Christie plot devices and its sources are the cited books. Keep! Hors-la-loi 11:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Stubifying

I've stubified this article. The entire article lacks references to cited sources (the one reference appears to be from a fan site). I tried to take a gander at the JSTOR source provided at the most recent AFD, but hit the paywall; didn't take a look at the other source. Regardless: the content remains in the article history, but after several years of general stagnation and marginal improvement after two AFDs, it just doesn't seem appropriate to let this largely unencyclopedic content to remain here. Anyone inclined to restore, please be mindful of WP:BURDEN. --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the content. You can't remove content because you don't want to go the trouble of going to the library to look at an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN? I'm removing the article from my watchlist out of general apathy, but I'm kind of surprised by your decision. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in a little more detail at your talk p. I intend to work on it further. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in references 1 and 2 that refers to so-called 'tropes.' And it is not the responsibility of reader to 'go to the library.' Wikipedia contributors need to do their own citations to support the claims they make. If there is no published support, then the claims are OR. I still don't see why this article shouldn't be removed. MarkinBoston (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me the article is a helpful summary of some Christie plot devices and its sources are the cited books. Keep! Hors-la-loi 11:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Failure to recognise former spouse

The famous fictional example Mrs Christie must have been aware of, as no doubt many of her first readers were, was the 1861 novel East Lynne.

Hors-la-loi 15:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Blanking

An editor recently blanked almost the entire article, adding a couple of new, but with due respect, rather valueless, sections. ~~If the article is too OR then let our peers vote at an AFD as a last resort.~~ The article survived an AFD already. Unilaterally blanking almost an entire quite long-standing article, and leaving no mention on this talk page, is just soooooooooooooo wrong. Quis separabit? 17:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see several problems here.

You are violating assume good faith by saying that I blanked the page and calling my sourced additions to this page valueless. I would advise you not to do so. If you continue to do this, you could face sanctions. Instead, try being constructive.
I don't need your permission or anyone else's permission to remove unsourced original research. I waited almost an entire month before I removed all the unsourced original research on this page. That is above and beyond what guidelines suggest. In fact, I didn't even have to tag it; I could have deleted it all a month ago, but, as a courtesy, I gave what I considered to be a generous grace period, along with an explicit warning that citations were needed.
If you persist in edit warring over this, I will call for administrative intervention. Seeing as how I've gone beyond what Wikipedia guidelines suggest, I do not think that this will go well for you.
You removed the only sourced content (beyond the lead) when you reverted my edits. If you want to bring back the content that I deleted, you are free to do so, but you must present valid citations for it.
It doesn't matter that this article survived an AfD. That has nothing to do with my edits. If I think this article deserves to be deleted, I will nominate it myself. Right now, I am working on removing original research and adding referenced text. If you wish to contribute to the page, I suggest that you try to find some references. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already contacted an admin, who has been around Wikipedia for a long time, with immaculate credentials. I am sure she will render a fair decision on the merits. When you say: "If you want to bring back the content that I deleted, you are free to do so, but you must present valid citations for it" -- you are referring to what exactly, page numbers, ISBNs, ...?? I was not/am not edit warring, I was responding to your unexplained blanking of almost an entire article. And pardon me, your additions are pedestrian and valueless, especially in comparison with the text you want removed from the article, and I am saying that as a Christie fan who has read almost every mystery she wrote. Quis separabit? 18:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed edit warring, and you risk being blocked for doing so. I am not going to engage in a ridiculous edit war with you, and if you continue to push this, I will seek administrative sanctions against you. This could include being blocked from editing. I would advise that you read the linked policies from my previous message, as you seem to unfamiliar with Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. The deleted text was in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V, and it needed to be deleted. If you persist in edit warring, restoring unsourced text, and insulting users, you WILL be blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]