Talk:Twilight (Meyer novel)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Twilight (Meyer novel). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Edward does not disappear for a 'few days' in the novel it is several weeks (he hunts and stays with the Denali clan in Alaska), however in the movie it is represented as days. (Elle1502 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

The article is correct. Here is what Edward says to Bella in Chapter 13 of the book: "'By the next morning I was in Alaska.' He sounded ashamed, as if admitting a great cowardice. 'I spent two days there, with some old acquaintances... but I was homesick.'" Andrea (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There should probably be a section on crititcism, as this book, as much as it is widely loved, is also widely hated. As long as it's kept mature and not "THIS BOOK SUKS" this would be a good addition. Points to bring up would be it's intense deviation from vampire mythos, which greatly bothered many fans of vampire literature, such as "Sparkling" in sunlight, in which a vampire would generally burn. Another point would be how the majority of characters are what's known as "Mary Sues" among writers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_sue

I agree (being a Twilight hater myself) but since we can't find a notable review for a recognised publication that criticises the book and we can't add the opinions of numerous haters, it'll have to wait... Farslayer (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

people, take it easy. i mean, meyer had to distinguish herself somehow. i think its a good book. it definitly does not suck. you couldent write a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.154.227 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

personally I think a 13 year old could probably write a better book than this. I know I can anyways. TheRabidMonkie (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an eleven year old, and I have a writing talent (not to boast), and I know I could write ALOT better than old Meyer---and I do.

i guess i agree, there r 2 many fan sites out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.154.227 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in support of adding more detail of the criticism. Another concern is that Bella's unhealthy obsession with Edward is dangerous for her but it was never addressed properly as a concern in the book and therefore a major flaw. There should also be some info about the young female majority audience somewhere. Fans, it is certainly fine to like the book, but any flaws should be pointed out too. This is not a fan site. Heartdreamer (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's definitely a need to reference some material here pointing out that this entire series is basically thinly veiled Mormon anti-feminist propoganda advocating the desirability of abusive relationships and subservience to emotionally-stunted male stereotypes as a worthy goal for teenage girls. The article at present is little more than the ramblings of idolizing, unquestioning fangirls for the material. If the Harry Potter articles are not complete without pointing out criticism of a story involving male self-actualisation, then I'm not sure how this one could be considered complete without some treatment on its advocacy of emotionally abusive gender stereotypes. Hopefully some academic will get around to doing a proper deconstruction of this series soon, as linking to commercial reviews on the internet seems a little too weak a reference at this point. 68.160.172.176 (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

^{[original research?]} ...I'll look into it, if I have time. Icy // ♫ 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased (or close to unbiased) internet source. Both sides need to be portrayed. Twilight made history when it ignitied the passionate obessions and hatreds of people around the world. I, for one, would like to see a section on the technicalities of Meyer's writing style. For example, her near sickening overuse of the words: smoldering, golden, bronze, marble, ocher, and butterscotch. MissMeticulous (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

More appropriate for the Twilight (series) page? If you have any references to back you up that will state her use of those words in particular in a negative way, I'd be quite happy to add it for you. I, for one, kind of agree. However, if all of us were welcome to add our own opinions to the article, the neutral point of view policy would be long dead and rolling in its grave at that. So claims like that must be backed up by reliable sources. Icy // ♫ 14:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, general criticism would be more fitting on the series page and/or Stephenie Meyer's page, and not necessarily here unless the criticisms are specifically directed at this book. I've been meaning to write such a section for Meyer's page for quite some time, but I haven't found too many references so far. Any reliable sources that critique her writing style would be much appreciated. Personally, I don't see a problem with bias on this topic, since on the Twilight (series) page, the Critical Reception section is negative for the most part. That's not to say that the crit. rec. on this page in particular couldn't use some expanding, though. Andrea (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose this ( Yahoo Answers ) counts, though it is very in-depth. MissMeticulous (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, but you're right, it doesn't really count for much reference-wise. Icy // ♫ 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think so. Guess I'll do another search. I'm positive there must be something out there. MissMeticulous (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I love twilight but i would be interested to see what kind of criticism people could come up with. As said earlier it would have to stay mature otherwise it would just be plain idiotic.--Me.myself and mazzo (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I love twilght but contructive critisim is good.The books do fustrate me at some points and The charecters are a bit fake. even for vampyres.it cant be bias toward one side if we present both ideas. --Faeriefangs (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I HATE Twilight, but I am not biased. I agree, Wikipedia is an information source and it should have both sides of the story. Someone removed something about Stephen King saying something about Stephenie Meyer's writing. I don't remember it all, except for these words: "She's not very good."

You mean this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29001524 It should be added too, in my opinion. It's not like everyone like the books. And if I read the thinks written on this site, it feels like this book is one of the best books written ever, but actually its not 78.51.27.181 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen King's comments are already included on the Twilight (series) page, where they belong, as he was criticizing Meyer's writing in general and said nothing specifically about this book. The critical reception provided on this page is what we have been able to gather from reliable sources. If more negative commentary from such sources can be provided, of course it should be added as well. Andrea (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First, Twilight isn't so much a horror novel as it is Young Adult. That should be stated on the introduction. Also, Stephanie Meyer's choices for the movie Twilight are only her personal choices. Unless something is done, Stephanie Meyer will have no choice in the actors chosen for the roles. Disinclination 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have done major cleanup/editing of this article. In the introduction, all genres are listed (young adult, horror, and romance) and so show a neutral point of view. Also, I have referenced and rewritten the "Movies" section, showing that the point of view discussed is Stephenie's only. Kaiwynn 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Disinclination 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

She might not have any permanent influence but after doing some reading on Meyers website, it appears she had a moment to sit down with the writer and director to suggest her favourite actresses and actors. Lets hope they take Emily Browning into consideration. She would be a fantastic Isabella Swan! - Jennifer

Heavy editing needs to be done on the plot synopsis, many many contrary statements and incorrectly used titles. I don't know enough about the story to edit myself. -tellairai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellairai (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

thank u to everyone who edited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.154.227 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I really think that we are going to have to start making a series article for all of these books. Several articles on the series include useless information that contributes very little to the article in general, and seems to be just taking up space (religious beliefs on why there is no sex/violence in the series on the Eclipse page), and the Vampires section Stephenie Meyer's page (it has nothing to do with her, only her fictional works). Disinclination 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you. Anyone else up for it? Raven23 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I third it. — Emiellaiendiay 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that we would just change the title to Twilight (series), or that we put that extra information you mentioned in a different article? I would be able to help out with her religious beliefs because I'm her religon Bella 19:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It would mean moving that extra information, as well as any information about the general series as a whole, onto a separate page entitled "Twilight (series)," but still keep "Twilight (novel)" as its own page. Raven23 13:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

22:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)ScarlettYoshida (talk)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I'm sorry, but this article does not qualify under the Good Article criteria.

Foremost, the lead is too short. Expand it and include a proper summarization of the article and the points you wish to bring up in the article itself. Read WP:LEAD for details.

The prose is difficult to read at times, and this article could use a good copy-edit. Contact the League of Copyeditors, and solicit the aid of one its members if necessary. The plot summary is far too long, and needs to be heavily condensed. The plot summary should not offer an alternative to reading the book and instead only offer a brief synopsis covering the book's major points. The plot summary alone is more than a quarter of the page's content, which is unacceptable. Also, remove the spoiler tags as per WP:SPOILER, as they are inappropiate when used solely to mark off plot summary.

The scope of the article also needs to be expanded. The background and production of the book needs to be included, as well as the reception and criticism to the book itself. Adequate references also need to be supplied. The "Series" and "Film, TV or theatrical adaptations" are almost entirely unsourced, and need references to verify their content. The list of actors needs to be sourced and moved out of a list format. Same with the awards - place them into a paragraph format and expand on the contents of the awards, as well as any notable comments made.

Please fix these issues before nominating this article again from a GA and I am sure it will pass.

Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened the plot summary, added a "Reception" section, and slightly expanded the lead. There's a to-do list at the top that details what we need to do next in the cleanup thing. I wouldn't mind this article becoming a featured article, so let's go to work! Raven23 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree! I was wondering...by creating the Twilight series page, what exactly do we want on this page? Did we just wanted to change the title itself, or do we want to create a whole seperate article on the series itself? Bella 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw Raven23 response...sorry. Bella 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to the first post, do we really need the section that lists all the editions of Twilight? Per WP:IINFO, I think we should remove it. Clem (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree; I think we could definitely do without it. Andrea (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Clem (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, is there anyone horribly opposed to the idea of a page for the entire Twilight series? If no one objects within about a week, I'm probably going to go ahead and create the page. So, if you have any problems, speak now or forever hold your peace. Raven23 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't think I have enough time to create the page myself, so I would really appreciate it if you would create the page. I would be more than happy to help with page as often as I can. :)  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 18:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to have only been a series section made in this article; did you abandon the plan to make the page or did someone else just create that section and your not finished the page yet?  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 16:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving other users until Friday to object to the idea if they want; then I'm going to create the page. Raven23 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm supposed to be doing the Twilight series page. I'm working on it. School is not being friendly.

But, for the time being, here's a proposed template. What dost thou thinkest?

Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
Twilight universe
Books:	Twilight • New Moon • Eclipse • Breaking Dawn • Midnight Sun
Information:	Vampire • Werewolf
Characters
Humans:	Bella Swan • Charlie Swan
Vampires:	Edward Cullen • Carlisle Cullen • Esme Cullen • Jasper Hale • Alice Cullen • Emmett Cullen • Rosalie Hale (The Cullens) Laurent • James • Victoria Caius • Aro • Jane • Demetri (The Volturi)
Werewolves:	Jacob Black • Billy Black • Sam Uley • Quil • Embry • Seth Clearwater • Leah Clearwater • Paul

Obviously, not every character needs a page; we can make a page for all the characters and redirect minor characters' names to that page. And, of course, this will mean a bit more creation stuff...but this series needs a template. So. What do you guys think? Raven23 03:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, cool template! I think it's very well-done! Well, I'm all for it! I'll be happy to help out with creating some of the pages, but I need someone to start it out first. THEN I'll add in extra information if needed! :) Spottedstar 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am standing in awe. I cannot ever make a template like that. I think it's amazing. I just finished Eclipse and I'm planning to do some MUCH needed work with summaries and stuff. I also wanted to say that some of the charcters like Leah and Paul and stuff aren't that important in the series, so should we just create page like 'Minor characters in the Twilight series' or something? An example of a set up would be something like this.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you finished Eclipse? Good. We really need the Eclipse stuff.

I wasn't planning to make articles for every character; I just wanted them on the template. We can redirect the minor characters to a character page. I was thinking either a page for the whole characters (set up something like Fruits Basket characters) or a page for the minor characters.

I guess now all I need to do is finish the Twilight series page. Thank God there's a three-day weekend coming... 170.211.93.125 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, that last comment was me. I forgot to log in. My bad. Raven23 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I hope you didn't mind that I changed the template slightly. It's still the same, but all I did was fix Alice Cullen's link. It originally linked to some person named Alice McLaughlin, a Scottish Labour Party politician that was Catholic. But it's fixed now so it links to the Alice Cullen of Twilight! :D §ροττεδςταr^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I love this template so much, I'm putting it on my list of useful links on my 'under construction' user page. Again- It's amazing! 18:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Bella Swan 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I missed something here, but some IP user has already posted up a template on all of the Twilight pages. Would this be the work of anyone here that just didn't log on, or do we need to speak with the user? §ροττεδςταr^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who put the template up, but I do think it'll work; why pot use it? It is kinda better because it doesn't have any red links in the template (we shouldn't have any red links; articles should just be added to the template as they are written.) Also, there are three letters that are links in the corner of the template, v (veiw the template's page), d (discuss the template)and, e (edit the template). If we still want to use the template above, I do suggest someone adds these links to the corner of the template for easy finding. Bella Swan 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we abandoning this one then? With the other one up, this one seems pointless... §ροττεδςταr^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I say we do; there's really no point in changing it. Bella Swan 12:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not a huge fan of the current template, mostly because of the "Related Topics" bit. But if you guys really like it, I can live. Raven23 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! what about Alec--Me.myself and mazzo (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

and honestly wat about Marcus, you also forgot bout Tanya's family--Me.myself and mazzo (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, everyone, I'm finally done with Twilight (series). It's not perfect and still has some work that needs to be done on it, but it's up. Any further discussion that involves the series as a whole should go to Twilight (series). Raven23 22:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm not familiar with the subject matter here. But someone created Quil Ateara tonight who is apparently a character in this novel. It was deleted, I talked to the admin and had it recreated, then merged it with Jacob Black. All I had was a sentence, really, of salvageable info and I couldn't fit it in here, so I put it there. I then redirected Quil Ateara to Jacob Black in the interim. Here is the last version of the article before I redirected it: [1]. Zuperturtle created it and appears to have created Charlie Swan (Twilight) as well. Perhaps someone familiar with the novel could pitch in and lend him a hand? Cheers and happy editing. Into The Fray ^T/C 04:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and I have noticed quite a few new things popping up, another exapmle being Volturi. Really, the only reasons these articles weren't previously created was because there was so little about the characters, that there wasn't any point in creating an article. Charlie Swan (Twilight) has a bit more info than some other of the articles, but I still think that unless we get tons more info on him, he's going to end up being merged or deleted. ~ Bella Swan 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's enough about Charlie to create a page, but with the Volturi and Quil, they really are only minor characters. Maybe a minor characters page would be in order? Sophiakorichi 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Sophiakorichi

The Volturi can probably keep their article if we put all the information about all the members on that page; we might get a little more info in Breaking Dawn, after all. A minor characters page would be good, though. Raven23 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think someone previously mentioned a minor charcters page somewhere, and I do think that would be an excellent idea. ~ Bella Swan 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just finished it! ^^ I can't think of anything else to add to it right now- got anything? --PolarWolf ( sign ) 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome job!!!!! I love it :) ~ Bella Swan 13:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! ^^ Oh, and nice job on fixing the appearance section up a bit. I forgot about some of those- hard to believe, since I've read the Twilight series, like, 50 times each book! LOL --PolarWolf ( sign ) 23:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hardwicke to direct Meyer's 'Twilight' —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be changed to Minor Characters in Twilight, so that other charcters that shouldn't have their own article. Then we could just add all the extra characters to the article. ~ Bella Swan 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. I've been meaning to fix that page, but I'm going to be gone the next week, so I won't be able to. Good luck, though. Raven23 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've changed the page name to Minor Characters in Twilight and merged all the minor charcters into it. It should be set to go. The only thing I couldn't find was an article on Billy Black. I thought we had one but I can't seem to find it. If anyone does, please give me the link. ~ Bella Swan 02:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, apparently there's reference on IMDB to the Twilight movie being released on December 12th 2008, but I've heard that dates change there all the time. So what we might read from it might not be absolute. I'm not sure if this is true, but as for now, should we add the information in the article? §ροττεδςταr^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Might as well. We can put "tentatively" or something to that effect. Raven23 (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Twilight movie official website was recently created ( See here) It seems that Dec. 12 '08 is the official date. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just watcht the movie, personly I thought that the movie was stupid. It left out tons of stuff and add stuff that did not fit. The relationship between Bella and Edward is not how it should be. Does any one agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.134.49 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources agree with you? BTW, there's a separate page Twilight (2008 film) for the movie. From what the crit recep section there says, I wouldn't say reception was overwhelmingly positive, at least from the critics. Icy // ♫ 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That picture of Forks does not belong in the article, as it has nothing at all to do with the novel. And the same really goes for the other pictures on the articles. So, yeah, I'm getting rid of it. It is unnecessary and does nothing for the article. Raven23 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it there? @_@ 99.162.100.253 (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward cullen is also in love with Scarlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.78.75 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

who the hell is scarlet? not meaning to be rude, but??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.247.189 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably just vandalism crap. If it hasn't been deleted then go ahead. Love, IceUnshattered (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly. We need a section on Critical reception, or how it was taken my critics/the general public. With the novel's fame, this can't be too hard. I'll start looking into it, but I just wanted to get it out. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Later note: I got started, but there's still plenty left to be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceUnshattered (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty on the positive reception of the book, but how about some of the negatives? The way it stands, the section is awfully one-sided. I realize this is a best-selling novel, but there ARE people that severely dislike the series for one reason or another. The negative reviews merit mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.231.162 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I'm sure that beneath all the hype and excitement, there are going to be some people who aren't totally into it. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically create your name (or IP address, in this case) and time of posting. Thanks! IceUnshattered (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hillias J. Martin of School Library Journal praised the novel, saying, "Realistic, subtle, succinct, and easy to follow, Twilight will have readers dying to sink their teeth into it." How is this critical? It's basically just arse kissing. TheRabidMonkie (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was bored today and figured that there was some to be improved in the plot summary, so I did a rewrite in my Article Drafts user subpage. Before I replace the plot summary, I'd like some feedback. Thanks! Love, IceUnshattered (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks great, but it has a lot of typos. Would you mind if I fixed them? ~ Bella Swan^? 16:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do. I didn't give it a double-check, so if you could help, that'd be great. I think I'll look over it first to see if I can do anything. IceUnshattered (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaand..... typos corrected. At least the ones I found. If no one objects, I'll replace the old one with the rewrite later today. IceUnshattered (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There were still a few more typos that I found, but I fixed them. I think you're good to go. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My version was rv'ed. Ah, well :). IceUnshattered (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC

I was thinking of going to WP:RPP to request semi-protection due to the IP vandalism that's been going on. Any feedback? IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And done. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 18:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a note saying that a Twilight Task Force might be in the works. A poll is currently being held here to see who would be willing to join. If you would like to join, please participate in this poll. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan^? 13:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I fell in love with Twilight from when Bella&Edward first met they are the cutest couple ever and nothing can change my mind!!!! I also can't wait for the movie to come out November 21st 2008 Oh my gosh!!!!! I am like one of the biggest Twilight fans EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.129.72 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are :). Unfortunately, this isn't really the right place to tell us that. Your comment might be more appropriate on a Twilight forum. Also, when you're commenting on article talk pages, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). It's a widely accepted rule that allows us to know your username (or in your case, your IP address) and the the time you posted your comment. Cheers, IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OKAY but I still love Twilght!! I'm on team Edward Cullen! 5:08pm September 25th

Great to hear it, but please express your enthusiasm on a forum. Thank you. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest next time a comment like this comes up they be outright deleted, to prevent fans cluttering the talk page. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking so...possibly an archive would be a good solution? Comment like this come up relatively often due to the considerably sized Twilight fanbase, I suppose. I'm pretty opposed to deleting comments outright, only to be seen in history, unless it's outright vandalism done in bad faith. I personally think that an archive would be pretty good, non-constructive fangirl-ish things could be moved immediately to the archive. Feedback, anyone? IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 22:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think dleting it would be the better option. I've things like that done before on talk pages of articles such as HP, and I think it would be fine to do that here, as long as we did it in good judgement. I do think we should get a bot to archive the page though, like every couple of months or so. ~ Bella Swan^? 02:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bella, for your feedback. I think I'll leave the existing comment where they are, and if these kinds of things happen in the future, I'll probably give a reply and rm' it after a few days. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or we may we add {{notaforum}} to this talk page as a clear warning. :) What do you think? --PeaceNT (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with adding the warning to the top, as this page is quite a target for fan comments, though I doubt it will solve all of our problems. I see no reason why we shouldn't just delete these comments if they show up in the future- they serve no purpose here, and keeping the page clean and organized will be helpful for anyone reading/adding to the discussions. As Bella said, we just have to use good judgement and not go deleting-crazy. Andrea (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No comment on {{notaforum}}, but from past experience I'll say that it hasn't been particularly successful in ousting enthusiastic fans. So...it's decided? Delete unconstructive fangirl-y comments and leave 'em a note on their talk pages? IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 20:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently realized that the Critical Reception section had disappeared, leaving only the awards and nominations section. It seems that it died somewhere between here and here. Was it deleted in good faith, due to some reason (I highly doubt it)? If no one objects soon, I'll restore it. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow you're right, good catch. How did we miss that? Looks like the Cover section has disappeared as well. I see no reason why they would have been removed for good reason, especially since it looks like there was a lot of vandalism on that day. I'll re-add both sections right now. Andrea (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrea, for both the Refs and the Cover. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I removed the Characters section that somebody created and I wanted to explain why. The only main characters listed were Bella, Edward, and Jacob, and Jacob is definitely not important enough in the first book to even be included. That only leaves Bella and Edward, and I definitely don't think we should expand it to include all of the Cullens as well, who don't play such key roles in the book either. While I'm not against having a Characters section, I think it's just repetitive to list a few lines about each of the 2 protagonists when such explanations are already given in the plot summary and in the lead (the only reason there was more information written originally is because the sections included information about subsequent books). I mean, how many times do we really need to say that Bella is a girl who moves to Forks and falls in love with a vampire? Can anyone think of a better way to make a section about the Characters, if we should even have one at all? Andrea (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Honsetly, I don't think I've ever seen a GA class article about a book that included a character section. I tend to compare a lot of book articles I'm writing to HP7, which, if you look, contains no character section at all. So, I think you did right in getting rid of the section, and it should stay that way. ~ Bella Swan^? 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Artemis Fowl (novel), but I see no reason for a character section on this particular page. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 22:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was the person who created the characters section. It was actually so I could merely put a LINK to the list of characters as there was none. How frustrating can it get, wanting to know about the list of characters but unable to. Thanks for the explanations about why it was deleted anyway. =) EryZ (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As said here, the characters section is optional, so whatever goes. ~ Bella Swan^? 18:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't the easiest place to find them, but links to character pages are included in the Twilight template at the bottom of the article. Andrea (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be an anaysis discussion for this book for any symbolism, themes, other literary elements.- 71.101.149.40 (Talk)

Clarify? Do you mean in the article, an analysis discussion? IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 01:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Well i absolutely love this book. But i think this article needs to be deleted. This is just an easy way for lazy people to get onto the internet and not have to read the book to know what its about. Its exactly like reading the end of a book before the rest of it. Its not right and it really upsets me. If you dont want this article completely deleted then at least adjust it so it doesnt give away everything you would realy the book for. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbebegrl0990 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AFD, then. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want to read it, nothing anyone does will force them to. If they cannot find a synopsis here, they will look elsewhere. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone will comply. MissMeticulous (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the anti-Twilighters on TSdC have been getting abused, because of this book. Could we put that somewhere notable? It's really bad abuse --- Broken limbs and bloody eyes, and things like that. I don't care if it goes under Twilight Series or here, just put it somewhere please? 76.126.21.57 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse my stupidity, what's TSdC? Icy // ♫ 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

'Tis alright; TSdC: TwilightSucks... Not as bad as it sounds. o.o; It's a critique site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.21.57 (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it unless it receives "significant" attention - a.k.a, if it's been looked at and discussed by a third-party, reliable source. If you have any examples of that, we can think about figuring out where to put something in. Icy // ♫ 00:51, 19 January 2009 (UT

In interviews Stephanie Meyer claims that she never intented to write a book in the first place. The story of Twilight was just a dream she had one night. when she woke she didn't want to forget about the characters in her dream so, she wrote it all down. stephanie had trouble getting her story published, but what kept her going was her sister and the characters of Bella and Edward. She wanted to let the world meet the them, and she did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.163.185 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Firstly, could you sign your posts on discussion pages with four tildes (they look like ~~~~)? Secondly, inserting that information into the article would require a reliable source. If you can find the interview for us, then we can think about adding to the article. Icy // ♫ 20:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone archive this page? And someone who knows how, PLEASE nest all the templates at the top, there are too many and I at least have no idea how. --Pstanton (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just went in and added citations for all the awards that Twilight has won and that have been listed in this article. The only problem is, I'm not very good at adding footnotes and therefore they are incomplete. However, they are all authentic, so please expand them if you know how. Thanks, Clem (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding all the citations! I can add in the details tomorrow. Also, if you want to learn more about citations, you can read this. Probably the easiest thing to do is to use citation templates, which are explained here. Hope that helps. :) Andrea (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!Clem (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the list of cities is complete, some of the southern hemisphere ones are missing, and some of them might be in the list for the wrong type of twilight. Also, the definitions of the types need some work, and the part about civil twilight circumstances should be clearer. 203.97.206.69 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

e cel mai tare film pe care lam vazut sunt un mare fan twilight