Talk:The Green Mile (novel)

message: This is more drama than horror/fantasy. The Person Who Is Strange 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horror? 

message: I've done some initial clean up on this article and its infobox to bring it more in line with the Novels MoS and Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the use of WP:NONFREE images. As such, I've moved the cover of the original first volume release to the infobox and removed all the rest. I've also updated the infobox to the first release, as per its instructions. The re-release as a single volume is covered in the prose, but it should not take precedence over the original release. I plan to also work on cutting down the plot section, fixing up the volume list into a proper release section, and add a reception section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I added the cover of the complete hardcover edition, which AnmaFinotera removed, arguing it was not notable. I disagree. I believe this image adds value to the article, as the image I uploaded is one that will be most familiar to most readers, is still sold in stores, and, finally, most notable for being the only hardcover edition of the novel (there have been a few paperback editions). Let us have consensus then. Jmj713 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image does not add anything of value to the article. Individual book covers are not necessary and the infobox specifically calls for the first release, not the "most common" one. It is not necessary for readers to see another version of the book cover, which does nothing but feature stylized text of the title, to identify this book. Nor is this second cover discussed critically within the text of the article. As such, I feel it violates WP:NONFREE, is more of a decorative image than a critical illustration, and does not belong in the article. (BTW, as this article has few other editors, I'd recommend a note at the Fiction notice board and the novel project to request additional views or it will likely just be you and me for awhile :-P) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not in the infobox. I'm perfectly fine with the way the infobox currently is. It's separated and in the main text. Pictures makes articles better. And since there is no free alternative possible, I don't see how it violates WP:NONFREE - any book cover does that. Jmj713 (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, pictures do not make articles better. Wikipedia is primarily a text-based encyclopedia. Images should be used sparingly and either for identification purposes (infobox/lead images), or to impart critical information that can not be imparted with text alone. A basic book cover with no critical commentary does not meet this requirement, making it a violation of WP:NONFREE, not because it is a book cover, but because it is not being used in a necessary manner. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Umm, yes pictures do make articles, even ones about a book,  better.  Humans are primarily visual. A picture is worth a thousand words blah blah. Wikipedia's lack of quality pictures and photographs is often cited by outside critics as a chief weakness. G&E (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your personal opinion. Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and manuals of style say otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional cover image 

message: If the mouse lived for 64 years in the novel, and a common house mouse has a life span of up to two years, then a human (who in good health could reach 108 naturally) might have their life span extended up to 32 times the normal length.  Thus, the protagonist in the novel might reach a shriveled up old age of about 3,500 years.  Any thoughts?  Suggestions?  Corrections?  Does this seem like it might be included in the article?  66.199.57.3 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't include it in the article. The book doesn't. It simply implies that he might get to live very long and that is good enough for the article as well. Richard 08:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: No, it doesn't belong. WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible extended life of the protagonist 

message: What's with the "nigger cocksucker John Coffey" line in the article?  *Maybe* if that's a descriptive phrase used in the book, it *might* be acceptable, but even then I think it's a little over the top.
I'd delete it myself, but I tend to write notes on the talk pages (of Wikipedia) rather than directly edit the articles.
Rhkramer (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty obvious that was vandalism. I had hit revert earlier but it didn't take. Doing again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language? 

message: As there was a "magic Negro" furor further up the page, I have decided to explain my deletion to avoid any editwarring.
I removed the material from Reception because it was synthesis, misrepresentative of the source, and also not pertinent to the book that is the subject of the article.
Mendez's article is about Barack Obama as a "magical Negro" and references multiple works of Stephen King's by title (including The Green Mile), and that is all she does.  She makes no mention of any specific characters in those works, and to claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the source.  Furthermore, the statements Spike Lee made aren't even quoted, and he was talking about the portrayal of minorities in film (as the title seems to indicate).  So not only is that not relevant to a novel, but there's no actual support for the statement.  A Google News search seems to indicate it was a throwaway comment on films like The Green Mile that Lee made while doing a series of talks on college campuses in 2001.  Not only is Mendez's article not related to the film, neither is Lee's talk, really, and neither of them are either related to each other or the book that is the subject of this article. MSJapan (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: In the lead, there is this sentence "Published in six volumes, it was crafted while the book was already in production." (my emphasis added). It has a citation needed tag. But what does this even mean? It sounds like it is talking about the film, but this article is about the novel. –CWenger (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: About the serial novel - "the" novel is originally a collection of six books, and the first book was already for sale when the last book wasn't finished yet. The term "production" might need rephrasing. Richard 08:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, of course. Thanks! –CWenger (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rewriting that clumsy introduction, but further edits may yet be needed. Whimper (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd phrase in the lead 

message: The film article The Green Mile (film) has been requested to be moved to The Green Mile, see Talk:The Green Mile (film). 
65.93.14.196 (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Green Mile"

message: John was born in 1892 which would make him 40 in the year 1932 when most of the story takes place, not 44 as someone wrote earlier. I changed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.141.138 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul's Age