Talk:Twilight (Meyer novel)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twilight (Meyer novel) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Twilight (Meyer novel) was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 2, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Novels: Twilight Mid‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Twilight task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Children's literature High‑importance

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.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media 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.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Women writers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. 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.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 29 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Twilight (novel). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 15 May 2013. Further details are available here.

Critical reception

"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 69.168.135.228 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 more negative criticism of the book. 173.58.137.88 (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll see, the article currently says "Since Twilight's initial publication, the book has received mainly positive reviews from critics". This can never be changed unless it is proven otherwise. Websites that hate it? I'm sure there are far more fan sites. You can't use some random person's website that has very small notability as a reference, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080702528.html, this NPR blog goes into great detail about the flaws in style http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/03/the_writing_style_of_twilight.html?sc=fb&cc=fp.

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 tension.

Jacob, so sympathetically portrayed in New Moon, unexpectedly morphs into an obnoxious thug who comes close to date rape in his dealings with Bella, who remains an insufferable bore. -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 postGoodyfun (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun[reply]

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 83.100.162.188 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Much?

I personally, do not like the Twilight books, but, some of you go over the top with your hatred. Saying that they should be "burned" and things like that is extremely immature. I just found it uninteresting, although it's clear that Meyer has a great talent in writing. The books were well written, but I'm not one for fantasy. Still, it's absolutely ridiculous how some people respond. Just because you don't like the book, doesn't mean you have to go around saying hateful things. Everyone has the right to voice his or own opinion: freedom of speech, right? But, if what you have to say is just downright mean, keep it to yourself. Another thing that is rude is judging it without reading it. A large majority of people I come across say God-awful things about the books when they haven't even read them. There are a lot of books I've read that I didn't particularly enjoy, but that doesn't mean I go around slashing it every chance I get (Twilight, for example). My advice to the biased is to grow up, and learn some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.128.227 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think that Stephenie Meyer has "great talent in writing?" Jesus, that's pathetic. Go take a few literature courses, then come back and tell us why that was the most profoundly stupid and ignorant statement on all of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.75.71 (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the person above. I on the other hand actually enjoyed the books and it really bugs me when people say awful things about it without even reading it. ~KKL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerissangel (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if we have to back our statements up with facts, then a sentence saying, Since Twilight's initial publication, the book has received mainly _______ reviews from critics, should have no place in any article ever. It does not matter if it is a positive or negative statement, just link to the reviews and excerpts, and let the article reader form their own thoughts. You can not empirically know if most of the reviews have gone one way or the other in this digital age, especially if we are counting School Library Journal and Teenreads as worthwhile sources for book reviews. That said, I will now remove the offending statement based on the logic of the people who think it should stay. If you think that the majority of the book reviews are positive, that is a fine thing for you to think, provide a source that shows the majority of the book reviews from all outlets so that we can know for sure if over half of them are positive. This is a ridiculous statement, and a ridiculous argument, for a ridiculously gushing article. I just want information, not how much people love or hate it, no one cares what random wikipedia people think, they just want information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.187.13 (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like the book, doesn't mean you have to go around saying hateful things. Everyone has the right to voice his or own opinion: freedom of speech, right? But, if what you have to say is just downright mean, keep it to yourself. This quote is an oxymoron. If you truly believe in freedom of speech you should not be bothered by the fact that some people UTILIZE said freedom right? And they don't HAVE to voice their opinion, they choose to do so just like you. By saying you have a problem whit them voicing their opinion your condratidicting yourself. To summarize: defending anything whit the argument "free speech" makes one come of as marvelous hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.109.102.252 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can i just say, you can say and think what you want on a twilight haters blog or whatever but this is wikipedia telling everyone about the novel, and seriously people who don't like the book, why are you even looking at this then. My guess is for attention and to cause trouble. Cya :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.48.198 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThantosX (talk • contribs) 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)[reply]

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!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.176.81 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remove referal link

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 http://www.amazon.ca/Twilight-Stephenie-Meyer/dp/0316160172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.4.225 (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Andrea (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the paperback copy there are only 498 pages to mine.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.176.81 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, no "rules" section?

Usually articles about vampire related media have "rules." 67.148.120.84 (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)stardingo747[reply]

What? No they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.49.46 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alex Reads Twilight"

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)[reply]

Can you find a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.219.182 (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{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: http://handsoftwilight.com/ Thank you, Fixafone123 (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Fixafone123[reply]

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

twilight is a good book look at it— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.90.247.45 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Views of Twilight

Okay, I personaly like the series for the writing. The fluff and promise of love for eternity is a bit unreal. Love can not last forever, it will die eventually. I have read all of them, and I think the writing is in very good order. I have to admit, that the people who claim that they hate this series so much that they have to burn them...it's a bit over the top. Okay, you don't like it, doesn't mean that others don't. You have the right to your opinion, and we should all respect that. Just as others have the right to theirs. To me, Twilight and the other books, also teaches things about abstinece. Waiting for the right time before you give the one thing away that you can't get back. Also, the choice of choosing things from the heart, or listening to what others think you should do. I am a fantasy reader, but I will read anything. In my opinion, Stephenie Meyer's writing is good, and I think that she should continue writing. Darkdicidee (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Darkdicidee[reply]

I Read Twilight

I Have Read This Book Over And Over Again And I Loved EVERY Second Of It. Stephine Meyer Is An Amazing Writer As I Have Read All Of The Books She Has Ever Wrote. Twilight Is A Good Book If You Want Suspence. I Recommend It To EVERYONE! I Mainly Recommend It To People Who HATE Reading As It Is The Perfect Book. I Strongly Disagree With Everyone Who Think Differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.229.181 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081123072800/http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6280581.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6280581.html

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} 06:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 June 2016

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose ambiguous disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Clear primary topic compared to other novels named Twilight. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. SST flyer 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PARTIALDAB. I see nothing wrong with the current setup.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chaseshea. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. reasonable arguments were made on both sides of this, with those in favor of the move citing WP:PTOPIC and WP:PDAB, and those opposed citing WP:TITLE and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. None of these appeared particularly convincing to naive discussion participants, who fell easily on both sides with no particularly convincing or stand-out arguments in weight, policy-applicability, etc. It may be the case that somewhere else (e.g. Emma (novel)) a consensus was reached in favor of a change like this, but that is not the case here. And on wikipedia, policy and local consensus reigns when no overarching consensus exists. In this case, no consensus was achieved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (Meyer novel) → Twilight (novel) – Stephenie Meyer's Twilight was immensely successful and most certainly meets the higher notability criteria set out at WP:PDAB. Pageviews this year are at about 98% vs. the other novels named Twilight. The last RM in 2016 was held before the current PDAB rules were established (3 Sep 2019.) 162 etc. (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BUT keep the redirects. Like, we don't typically use partial disambiguation in the TITLES themselves, but the compromise strategy of having "Twilight (novel)" and "Twilight (book)" redirect here is a great solution (a solution that's already in effect). Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason behind the RM is that the status quo is bad - if Twilight (Meyer novel) and Twilight (novel) are the same article, then why keep the excessive disambiguation? 162 etc. (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. The ratio of pageviews of this book against all other books is 43 to 1. This novel easily falls within Wikipedia:PTOPIC. There's absolutely no logical reason to have the less disambiguated term "Twilight (novel)" redirect to this page but not name the page itself that. aaronneallucas (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong oppose per WP:TITLE WP:DISAMBIGUATION. This RM is contrary to all en.wp guidelines and practice unless we now are going to have WP:PRIMARYNOVEL? This kind of disruptive deliberate ambiguation is usually only promoted for pop demigods who would be demeaned by having their artist name on their album article title.

Twilight (novel series), by Stephenie Meyer
- Twilight (Meyer novel), the first novel in the series
"Twilight" (Campbell short story), by John W. Campbell, 1934
Twilight (Cabot novel), in the Mediator series by Meg Cabot, 2004
Twilight (Hunter novel), a 2007 Warriors: The New Prophecy novel by Erin Hunter
Twilight (Wiesel novel), by Elie Wiesel, 1988

Massively disruptive. I can't think of a single more disruptive and damaging thing to propose to make the encyclopedia a worse place. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is clearly an overreaction, but it doesn't even strike me as justified. Emma (novel) is the title of the Austen work's article despite Emma (Kenyon novel) existing, and the encyclopedia hasn't imploded yet. Night (book) and Night (O'Brien novel) are a similar pair, as are Into the Wild (novel) and Into the Wild (book). I admit Emma is the only example that perfectly matches this situation, but still. I will also note that, when this move discussion took place in 2016, a user opposed it citing the Thriller (album) redirect—that article has since been moved to that title. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma, as a precedent, was a title change from “Emma”. Of course it was an improvement to add “(novel)”. There are few unrelated other novels title “Emma”, unlike “Twilight”, and so Emma is an extremely poor claim of precedent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Novels has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Romance has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Horror has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough consensus — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Primary topic as far as literature goes.★Trekker (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clearly the primary topic for a novel named Twilight. WPscatter ^t/_c 08:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpscatter: we don't have primary novels Emma (novel) is clearly a local exception. The encyclopaedia works on there being either one WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which in the case of twilight is twilight. There is no primary in subtopics. This is very basic. See WP:TITLE, WP:DISAMBIGUATION etc In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not true that there can be no primary subtopic. According to WP:PDAB, "PDABs can have primary topics, but that "the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator". In other words, there can be a primary subtopic, but declaring one as such requires a higher standard that declaring something the primary topic overall. As I pointed out, the novel for Twilight outnumbers all other novels of the same title 43 to 1. That easily meets the standard of a primary subtopic. aaronneallucas (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have them in a tiny percentage of unhelpful local consensus cases. The encyclopedia as a whole does not have them. For good reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"unhelpful local consensus cases"... you mean... like right now...? aaronneallucas (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Twilight (novel) is too ambiguous. Shwcz (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, clear PRIMARY and there's already a precedent for this as per Emma (novel) above.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So all novels are at the wrong titles and Emma (Austen novel) benefits from not having "Austen"? I don't think so so @Ortizesp: the other Emma (Kenyon novel) simply means that the Austen Emma is at odds with WP:TITLE. But there's a simple solution. None of F. W. Kenyon's books are notable judging from a GBook search, and no reason why one book should have a stub. So as 162 has proposed and I have seconded within 24 hours that microstub will be merged anyway. And the need to have "Austen" is academic. Also I hate to say this but the other Twilight books are notable, and Stephenie Meyer is not Jane Austen. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Paintspot Infez, In ictu oculi and Shwcz. The main title header form "Twilight (novel)" does indeed represent incomplete disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, primary topic, PDAB and concision. The benefit of having it at the more concise title is it conveys to all that this novel is by far the most likely novel with that name to be sought. --В²C ☎ 16:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons stated above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Consistency with the several other Twilight novels by other authors. Recognizability, the author name helps, and never hurts. Extreme page views are recentism involving American youth culture who highly bias internet clicking; for the rest of the world this American youth novel is obscure and will be more so with time. No reader seeking this novel is hindered by the title including the author, some readers seeking this novel will be hindered by it being the only Twilight novel missing the author, and other readers seeking other Twilight novels will be hindered if there is this page sitting at an ambiguous title. Concision is not improved by taking an already concise title and removing information; concision is not the same as brevity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for the rest of the world this American youth novel is obscure is demonstrably false, and and will be more so with time is a non-argument (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Please base your argument on the facts: this Twilight novel is significantly more well-known than the others. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Twilight, the novel, this article, was not outstanding in other countries. Don’t be confused with the series, and with the movies, which are not this article.

WP:Recentism is not negated by WP:Crystal.

Why do you ignore the most important points, this page page will increase hindrance to some readers, and advantage none? Seriously, what is this obsession with article title brevity? Who do you think it helps, let alone questions of balance of helps vs hurts? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Miraculous move

The move is the new version of tales of ladybug and cat noir but it’s related but it’s a better version taking out July 28, 2023 everyone wants to know is that the end of miraculous who is there gonna be a season 6 what was the season 6 the movie no one knows yet, but it says it’s gonna come out next year or later this year. It’s in the works but people also having you think there’s going to be a season 7 to is that no one knows if it’s true or false, but nothing has been said yet, so it’s in the works for a Yes, or a no I don’t know. Still talking about it to this day but if you need anything, I’m your biggest fan so the only thing you need to if you have anything to add just write it underneath or text or call 412-713-8850 but if not just write by and stay connected, I add everything ever I add a new topic every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday 2601:547:C001:18B0:92E:B755:786F:8BA4 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right it is a good movie but just cause the movie came out. Does it mean there’s gonna be a season six or seven but I believe you that it’s still in the weeks 2601:547:C001:18B0:92E:B755:786F:8BA4 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]