Talk:Stephen King/Archives 1

message: Stephen occasionally makes mistakes when writing about guns,I have put them in the article twice and twice they have been removed as 'irrelevant information.'They may seem irrelevant to a liberal from Kommiefornia,but they are obvious and significant to millions of people who know about guns.Dean Koontz makes no such mistakes in his books.Deleting this information was nothing more that a cheap political stunt.Imagine,the author of the Gunslinger series makes mistakes writing about guns and it's 'irrelevant.Finally,I am continuously amazed by the rudeness of people who are safe behind a keyboard.LAcameraman,you should take your liberal politics somewhere else.Saltforkgunman 02:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is relevant information to put in a biography of Stephen King. Many novels have small factual errors and other inconsistencies. Unless King's errors are particularly notable for some reason, this doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. Rhobite 22:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes pertaining to guns

message: Whoever keeps adding "WWW.StephenKingSciences.com" to the biography section header, please don't.  There's an "external links" section.Bjones 00:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography header 

message: Stephen's mom died after Carrie was published. She had it read to her before she died (while she was on her deathbed.). It says so in On Witing.
Theslash 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best if you cited the page in the article. -- LGagnon 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Steve's Mother 

message: Stephen King's books often appear on best sellers lists?  How about all of his books have made the best sellers lists!? 01:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Often?

message: "Shortly after his accident, King wrote the first draft of the book..."
-what accident? there's no other mention of that.
Well, if you look very closely, there's a little section there called CAR ACCIDENT. Try reading that. Gilulit 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  two things 

message: I think we should take out the paragraph on upcoming projects, as it dates this article and necessitates continuous revisions.  This information is available on external websites, I'm sure. 64.185.149.11 16:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "current" projects 

message: I know it's not a new book, but in 2004, the Publisher Little Simon released "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" in a pop-up book edition. It's pretty interesting, check it out.      January 5, 2005
Although it's noteworthy to point out, as it does indicate a first in the King world, there have been so many versions and reprints of King's books, I think it might be dangerous territory to start to include some. I question the inclusion of the "Gunslinger" as a revised work in this list as well. LACameraman 20:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The revised Gunslinger is a substantively different work from the origina; (as is the expanded version of The Stand, also mentioned in the list).  I don't think any of his other books have been revised to the extent that those have, and I'd argue they're notable enough to appear in the list.  The pop-up of Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon isn't, though. Brendan Moody 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Its a seperate work, and should be included. We're not just talking new covers or whatnot.--CyberGhostface 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing a book in the List

message: 12.208.243.12 has linkspammed every King related article with a link to http://www.king-stephen.com/  I have removed a few of them myself. -- LGagnon 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspam

message: I'll be working on this throughout the week - but if anyone (especially the original author) can help to give specific citations for the quotes that appear in this section - that would be great. LACameraman 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing Style

message: An unnamed contributor added The Talisman 3 (tentative) to the bibliography. There is no official word on a third book in the series, only rumors. LACameraman 09:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Deletion 

message: I just submitted an article on the poem Paranoid: A Chant, which was immediately tagged for merging into Stephen King. I'm a little confused, there are articles for nearly all of the stories collected in his anthology books. Why is this one marked for merge or delete? Also the adaptation was removed from the article - which makes it even more of a stub. Thoughts? LACameraman 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: "In 2002 King announced he would stop writing. He has apparently abandoned this idea, however, as he has written several books since."
From what I can remember, this was taken from a King interview that was later demonstrated to be a hoax. Can anyone prove or disprove this? Gershwinrb 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Check? 

message: The version quoted in the Article comes from a TV interview, but I cannot remember where or when this interview took place. I believe the "Stand" reference covers it. Michael David 13:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "victims" Quote 

message: It seems that Ruth should be introduced.  Her name appears in 2nd sentence of the biography section: "Ruth raised King and his adopted older brother David by herself".  Who is she?  Is Ruth her first name or last name?  Also it seems strange to refer to Stephen King as "King" and his brother as "David", but maybe this is standard.
:I agree with this, as "Ruth" just suddenly appears in the article.  I would chnage it, but do not have a source to refer to regarding this.  Panastasia 17:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth 

message: I changed the sentence, "He also writes stories that cannot be considered horror..." to "He also writes stories outside the horror genre..." A slight difference, yes, but I think it's debatable that stuff like The Shawshank Redemption cannot be considered horror at all. It's outside the genre, but it still has horror elements. It's not like King chose to write a romance or something.
By the way, I'm still looking for feedback on the Richard Matheson connection (see above), yet no one's responded. marbeh raglaim 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quibble with sentence 

message: Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry, probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?
 please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead.  This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article.  a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt.  thanks.  --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: link

message: Hi, I was just wondering whether  Pet Sematary could be considered linked to the Dark Tower series on the Stephen King page, as there is a reference made to it in Insomnia (Gage Creed's sneaker is found in the home of Doc #3 - sorry, can't remember his other name - Doc #3 being part of the Random, which is a part of Ka, and so on and so forth).  Ordinarily I wouldn't consider this to be enough, but as Salem's Lot is also said to reference the Dark Tower series (as the character of Father Callaghan appears in the series after Wolves of the Calla), I think this is fair.
: Basically all of King's works are referenced in Dark Tower somewhere, it acts as a sort of multiverse for his other works (and a fair bit of other literature besides), so it isn't anything special about Pet Sematary. JoshuaZ 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not an issue of "fairness", but of keeping the Dark Tower-linked book list useful to the casually interested.  The astute reader will find several tiers of links between books and stories, from direct crossovers of characters (Father Callahan, Dinky Earnshaw) and visits to worlds (The Stand), to second-hand de facto links (if A and B share space in a book, and B and C in another, then A and C are linked).  The Constant Reader will probably realize at some point that every King work can be logically connected in this manner: once Father Callahan enters, every Castle Rock and Derry story is roped in along with it, for we know the geographical relationships of the towns.  Once IT is connected, The Shining is, too (young Dick Halloran passed through Derry).  Since Tommyknockers can be connected via bona fide first-tier-DT-linked The Talisman, Regulators, and Insomnia, that means all stories about The Shop are sucked into the thinny: Firestarter to Golden Years.  The few that cannot be accounted for (like, I dunno, "Beachworld" for example) are safely covered by the concept of an infinite number of parallel universes.  You see where I'm going with this?  The Wikipedia reader needs to know that Insomnia will greatly illuminate The Dark Tower, not that Golden Years can be linked fourth-hand to the series.  It's probably best if the Wikipedia list reflects those designated "Dark Tower related" in King's own lists.    Chris Stangl 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pet Sematary 

message: The "Popular culture" list is reaching critical mass.  The list is absurdly long - nearly as long as the rest of the entry- and of questionable usefulness.  Is there a reason every "Family Guy" or "Just Shoot Me" joke about King needs to be explained in detail?  Given that King is the best-selling novelist of the last half century, and a major cultural touchstone, the list could be infinitely expanded (can you imagine, for example, a "Popular culture references to The Beatles" list?).  Might we find some way to summarize this?  Or criteria for keeping it pared down?  Chris Stangl 22:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose a brief paragraph explaining the depth and breadth of King references in popular culture (and high culture, for that matter). A new article may of course be created to preserve the list, and for those with interest in the topic to expand it to their heart's content.  As it stands the list is neither definitive nor useful to the article.  A model for reference might be the Star Wars main article, which has such a sub-section, but also a separate article called List of cultural references to Star Wars and a short explanatory article, Cultural impact of Star Wars. Chris Stangl 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that, too. The list is just going to keep on growing. If we don't change it from a list to prose, it will be the one area newbie wiki editors will continue to contribute endlessly. LACameraman 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We'd talked about it so much that I just went ahead and did it.  I threw in a prefunctory 'graph on cultural influence, but there's room for much more valuable information than a list.  New article moved to List of cultural references to Stephen King.  Chris Stangl 02:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on. Now that's WikiBold. Good work. LACameraman 02:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture references

message: "King fans note that the relative wealth of King's characters has risen through the decades, but not as precipitously as King's
 wealth itself: His earliest works (Carrie, The Shining, The Stand, as well as much of the work in Night Shift), deal with working-
 class families struggling from paycheck to paycheck in minimum-wage jobs.  Late-1980s work involved middle-class people like
 teachers and authors  Late-1990s work sometimes dealt with airplane pilots, writers and others who can frequently afford a
 second homestead."
Why I deleted this passage:
Something about this section in the King bio has always bothered me.  After actually bothering to compile a list of the careers and relative economic status of King's main characters, I've determined this is simply inaccurate.  I think the section on his writing style and subject matter is woefully underwritten, and could use more material like this, but the above just isn't true. King has written in fairly steadily about blue collar working characters, teachers, and writers through his career, with doctors and other professionals as consistant runners up, and a sprinkling of the very rich and powerful and very poor throughout.  I can share my detailed findings if anyone requires "proof".  Chris Stangl 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters' increasing economic status

message: Someone with a lot more knowledge on Stephen King's books needs to make a template that we can put on all of his books/stories. It's just begging for one. -- 70.152.225.17
:Are you sure we need this? It'd be a bit massive. -- LGagnon 14:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerns for such a template should be size and usefulness.  For example, there is an acceptably brief template for Robert A. Heinlein novels at the bottom of related articles, which is just a quick list of all the relevant books.  However, for comparison, look at a Buffyverse-related page, and check out the massive, unwieldy, useless template which lists hundreds of articles.  Would the purpose be better served by making sure all relevant articles are linked to Category: Stephen King?  Surely between the main article, the "Novels by" and "Short Fiction by" pages, there are enough indices of the work on Wikipedia.  It seems like energy would be better spent cleaning up the utter mess that is the main King article. Indeed, why bother with a template for 50 pages of mostly stubs and poor articles?  Chris Stangl 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it would be massive! Iolakana|(talk) 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Stephen King

message: Some discrepancies in the Richard Bachman section as to the appearance of himself and his wife in the Dark Tower series. Fixed them. 66.227.226.251 04:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Correction

message: I removed quite a few external links recently, and the removal was reverted without discussion.  I've reverted that, and brought the issue here for discussion.  The original version contains 21 external links; regardless of the individual quality of each I think that's too many.  WP:EL mentions "a small section containing a few external links."
Beyond that, a number of these links seem inappropriate in various ways.  There appear to be quite a few fan sites; the style guide recommends only one.  Some are about more specific topics (The Dark Tower, The Talisman, Dollar Babies) and might be more appropriate on the pages for those books/series.  One is not in English.  Others don't seem to have useful encyclopedic content.  (I could be wrong about any of these; if I am point it out.)
I'm not desperate to have my version of the external links section be the final form; if some of the links I've left out seem highly relevant and appropriate just say so.  I just want the external links section to represent a useful encyclopedic resource. Brendan Moody 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brendan - I saw the deletions that you made the other day and I have no objection with your edits. Each of those sites, in and of themselves, seem to be pertinent - but the list as a whole is extremely redundant. I think your refined list of links is quite sufficient. When you have a subject as prolific as Stephen King, it's hard to limit the connections, but I feel you did a solid job of cutting down the list. I'm sure it will be a constant battle, however, as each of the purveyors of those sites will attempt to relink their work to this article. I support your cut list. LACameraman 08:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Might the Richard Bachman ex-article be massive enough (and I believe might be expanded) to deserve its own main article, with a brief version on the King bio page?  I am torn, but the story is long, involved, and interesting, and the Bachman history could potentially hold its own weight as an article (it certianly did for a long time).  Chris Stangl 01:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris - at first I didn't think that was a good idea, but thinking further there is a lot more information that could be included on Bachman and it would seem fitting to have a separate article with a strong link between the two. I would be in support of a separation to a new article on Bachman. LACameraman 06:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a demerging as well.--CyberGhostface 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no objections, I'm on the case.  Chris Stangl 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bachman article merge

message: Stephen King's inspiration is a strange article, and difficult to locate, so I'm proposing a multi-article merge on the main article page.  There's a lot of useful (and sometimes sourced) information in the article, but it should all obviously be merged into the articles on the works it covers.  Chris Stangl 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Very interesting article. I think I would vote to keep it separate, but noted in each of the pertinent articles with a "full article" link. I had no idea this article existed. Very interesting. I do have to say, with regard to that article, I'm not a fan of footnotes being external links. I'd rather have a bibliography/references section listed with optional external links (a lot of work to convert that). I like this as a stand-alone article, I think the information is very interesting and will get lost of merged into the individual articles. LACameraman 09:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something to consider is "why would anyone be looking for an article called 'Stephen King's inspiration'?" versus "why would someone be looking for the inspirational spark of an individual work?"  There aren't articles like this for other authors, but Good Articles on novels do have Background sections (see Starship Troopers or The Brothers Karamazov.  There is a similar article about Star Wars: Star Wars sources and analogues, but that's arguably for a cohesive fictional universe, not dozens of individual works.  I do agree about the lazy footnotes though. Chris Stangl 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a very significant point. There are very few people who will search for "Stephen King's Inspiration" as a general search string; more likely they'll be searching for "Stephen King's Inspiration The Shining." However, that is one of the beautiful aspects of the Wikipedia - is that you can find references that you can't find elsewhere. If I was reading an article on <I>The Shining</I> and came across a link to a deeper article on King's inspiration and then found an entire article on the various inspirations, it would be like finding a gold mine on the Internet. If I'm interested in his inspiration for one story, chances are I would be interested in his inspiration for many other stories. My vote is to <B>Keep</B> the article. If it is a consensus to keep it, I'll be happy to start work on revising the footnotes. LACameraman 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized (duh) that we can make the article easier to access by, say, including a link in the King main article. Doing it now. Chris Stangl 21:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related article merge proposal

message: something should be added about the fact that the film version of "The Running Man" was credit as based on a book by richard bachman.  it's notable that at least one of the bachman books was successful enough to merit a film adaptation (albiet a very lose one) before he was revealed to be SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.104.34 (talk • contribs) 
:Actually it was released in 1987, two years after King was exposed...--CyberGhostface 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know of information that if you feel is worth adding to Wikipedia, you should add it yourself.  Don't ask permission.  Since you're asking for a vote, though, I don't see why this is at all important. Chris Stangl 22:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bachman movie

message: I always got the impression that it is more a homage to 'The Tell-tale Heart' than the other Poe story listed (the hallucinating progagonist, the continued assurances to the reader that he is sane, ect).
:Please add current discussion to bottom of Talk pages. Do not forget to sign Talk comments.  Feel free to change "Dolan's Cadillac" article if you have a reference... or if a passage that should have one does not.  Chris Stangl 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part at the end about Dolan's Cadillac

message: And, according to FamilyGuyFiles.com, Koontz was also in a car accident (hence the joke - Brian runs over a person, thinks he is Stephen King, but gets back in the car when it's Dean Konntz), but no mention in this article?  WTF? Hbdragon88 04:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that episode!  That was a great episode - he actually backs up and runs him over again.  By the by, I've noticed that Stephen King's article is much more detailed.  MasterXiam 02:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on List of cultural references to Stephen King. Foday 10:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: I did an edit of the whole piece and shortened it a bit--it's still over WP's recommended limit, which seems to me like a wise guideline both for readers and editors.  One part that seems like it could and should be spun off into its own article is the section on Richard Bachman. 
I'd also be in favor of getting rid of the quotations section, just retaining the Wikiquotes link--none of the quotes here are particularly notable. 
There's also the option of spinning off the bibliography, which often happens with long author articles. (It could be combined perhaps with the list of short fiction.) Nareek 11:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the quotation section. I've also made a Stephen King bibliography article via cut-and-paste, and if there are no objections I think that material should be cut from the main article. Nareek 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening 

message: "Unlike some authors, King is not at all troubled when a movie based on his work differs from the derivative work itself, and is often pleased with film adaptations of his work. He has contrasted his books and its film adaptations as "apples and oranges; both delicious, but very different." 
This seems to contradict the information on The Shining page, where it says King was very dissatisfied with Kubrick's adaptation, and worked on the mini-series version that came out in '97 because of this Pnkrockr 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What contradiction? If you haven't noticed, it's pretty mainstream to think Kubrick movies are pretty sucky.  In fact, I think you could have easily gotten up a lynch mob from the people exiting movie theatres when "Barry Lyndon" came out. ClairSamoht 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should go edit the Stanley Kubrick article--it falsely says that Kubrick "is widely considered one of the most innovative and influential filmmakers in cinematic history." Nareek 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Versions 

message: I reverted an edit that not only restored the bibliography (which has been moved to its own article) and the quotation section, but also put back spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, etc.  I have to assume that this was done in error. There were a couple of recent edits lost through the reversion, unfortunately. Nareek 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what page is the bibliography? It's not linked. --Jamdav86 19:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: I can understand the impulse that deleted three of the four works listed as King's "magnum opus"--how many magnum opuses can one author have?  But I'm not sure that The Dark Tower really works as King's magnum opus--or that any of his works would, really.
Wikipedia defines magnum opus as an artist's "best, most popular, or most renowned achievement".  I think it's safe to say that The Dark Tower is not King's most famous work; it wouldn't be the top answer on Family Feud.  Is it his most renowned, which I take to mean most critically acclaimed?  I don't know about that; it seems to be more of a cult thing.
That would leave "best".  And, well--I don't want to start any fights, but I really love some of King's novels, and I couldn't get past the first couple installments. (And I really wanted to like them, too--they were hard to find in those days, so they had considerable cool factor.) Suffice it to say that I found them extremely self-indulgent--you certainly don't have to agree with me, but I'm not sure we would find any consensus that the series is King's "best" work.  In short, it seems very POV to name The Dark Tower as King's magnum opus.
But what would replace The Dark Tower?  If it were up to me, I'd say The Shining, but I don't really see that as being less POV.  I sort of feel like we ought to drop the category--or if people don't want to do that, maybe we should go back to having four magnum opuses.
(If you Google "Stephen King's magnum opus", you overwhelmingly get hits that relate to The Dark Tower--but that's overwhelmingly because someone wrote a book called The Dark Tower: Stephen King's Magnum Opus.) Nareek 04:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that proof enough? Source it to that book and it would be fine. --Jamdav86 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's proof that somebody thinks The Dark Tower is King's magnum opus--I don't think it's sufficient for Wikipedia to state unequivocally that The Dark Tower is King's best, most famous or most renowned work. Nareek 11:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnum Opus 

message: Does anyone have any reliable figure on how many copies of his books that have sold throughout his carreer? Entheta 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book sales