Talk:Twilight (Meyer novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeTwilight (Meyer novel) was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
June 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Twilight (Meyer novel):

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Critical reception[edit]

"Since Twilight's initial publication, the book has received mainly positive reviews from critics" The most untrue statment I've ever heard, The book has been allmost universally panned outside it's target audience, and has a massive community of websites dedicated to hating it. Plus there's the whole thing about the main character being a Mary Sue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While I personally loathe Twilight as a series and would love to see more negative criticism of the book on the page, you have to back your statements up with reliable sources if you want to make them. By all means, go out and collect negative reviews from reliable sources and list them on the page. But saying "That's the most untrue statement I've ever heard, a lot of people dislike it" means nothing until you have something to back it up. Sorry if this comes off as a bit blunt - I really would love to see some nce, just like using a non-notable fan site. You can't enforce your bias opinion in an article. ©Ξ 03:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

there are plenty of reliable sources out there stating negative views towards twilight. it doesn't matter if it's reliable, it the site reviewed twilight and is a reliable source, and of course verifiable, than yes it can be placed in here. Saying "this can never be changed unless proven otherwise" is a bit much though.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the references. It seems that except for the teen website, the only reference about reviews is the author's own website. Author official websites never include negative reviews (for obvious reasons) so I agree that the critical reception information is not neutral. Here's a start on the links to negativity towards the books. This is a review from the Washington Post of the final book, this NPR blog goes into great detail about the flaws in style
Here are some quotes from the articles I've linked to that would be helpful to the article:
Meyer's prose seldom rises above the serviceable, and the plotting is leaden, but Twilight is really all about unrequited female erotic yearning. It's like reading a young teenage girl's blog, boosted with enough of Meyer's made-up vampire lore to give it some mild narrative and sexual tensio. -Parts from Washington Post review by Elizabeth Hand
I'm 220 pages in, and so far Bella has moved to Washington, started school, been saved from an accident, gone to the beach and gone to Seattle. How is that 200 pages of content? It would be fine if she had an interesting internal life or if Meyer were a perceptive observer (or a sharp describer). But none of these things are true. She is spinning her wheels like a car stuck in mud. -Marc Hirsh from the NPR blog post The Writing Style Of 'Twilight'
[I]t has this tone like it's written by an old lady, because it's stodgy and dry. But she doesn't have an old lady's sense of perspective on her situation. So it just doesn't work. -Linda Holmes from the same blog post

The pasts of all the vampires in the book are interesting - Alice Cullen can't remember her past, Jasper was created for a newborn army; Rosalie Hale was attacked; Emmett was being mauled by a bear; Edward Cullen was dying of a Spansih desiese;The created of all the vampires, Dr.Cullen, was hunted down by a vampire; Esme Cullen jumped off a cliff, and when Bella is finally changed into a vampire, she is dying by giving birth to a half vampire half human baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThantosX (talkcontribs) 16:28, 1 December 2009

Not done: Welcome. You need to make an explicit request when you use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. The request should have a 'Please change X to Y' level of detail and include sources if a factual change is requested. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Biased wouldnt be the turm I would think of when it came to these things. So I dont get how you could ttype those things on here anyway!

I would like to add a character section that lists all the characters in the book of twilight. I would like for the readers to get a sense of what the characters are like. Also so they can get a picture in there mind of what the actors loo like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancerchick99 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Please see List of Twilight characters. Andrea (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove referal link[edit]

The link to the hardcover is a referal link, someone has added their ID to the link to earn money from the people using the link

<link removed> should be changed to —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Andrea (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)On the paperback copy there are only 498 pages to mine.

What, no "rules" section?[edit]

Usually articles about vampire related media have "rules." (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

What? No they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Alex Reads Twilight"[edit]

Is it worth mentioning this long-running Youtube video series by user nerimon? They seem to have attracted a bit of attention. The first video has nearly 900k views and there seems to be some blogging interest e.g.this. Just a thought, thanks. —Half Price 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: I would like to add reference to the hand model for the Twilight book cover.[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please excuse me if I am not doing this correctly as I am a first time editor.

I would like to request that reference to Parts Model, Kimbra Hickey be added to the section covering the cover of the Twilight book. Hickey is the hand model that appears on the cover of the book holding the apple.

A link to her website:

Thank you, Fixafone123 (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Fixafone123

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Twilight (Meyer novel). 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2016[edit]

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 – I applied the Thriller treatment as suggested by SSTflyer. — JFG talk 07:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Twilight (Meyer novel)Twilight (novel) – The Stephanie Meyer novel is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for novels with the name "Twilight." [1] In the off-chance someone is looking for a different novel, a hatnote can guide them to the others. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose ambiguous disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Clear primary topic compared to other novels named Twilight. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PDAB. If a reader sees parenthetical disambiguation, they expect the title to be fully disambiguated. I would support retargeting Twilight (novel) to the Meyer novel similar to how Thriller (album) is handled. SSTflyer 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PARTIALDAB. I see nothing wrong with the current setup.--Cúchullain t/c 14:23, 5 July 2016 (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.

Alternate move[edit]

I've seen hundreds of disambiguated page titles (mostly concerning film) and the almost universal format is Twilight (2005 novel), which ought to fully disambiguated, though one (shudder) would have to check.

After all my time here, "(Meyer novel)" just does not look right. It's too bad the previous move discussion didn't address this possibility when it had the chance. — MaxEnt 22:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition: if there was a conflict on Twilight (2005 novel), next in the natural line of succession IMO ought to be Twilight (2005 vampire-romance novel). I don't think this is a burning issue, but I thought I'd record my two cents. One of the problems is that "Meyer" is not necessarily knowledge the person seeking the page already possesses. It's only fully DAB after you've read the page you're seeking. If you're searching for something without either the date or the genre, there's very little expectation of one-stop shopping. That's my own sense of it, FWIW. — MaxEnt 22:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)