Talk:All the King's Men

message: Also produced as an oft revived off-Broadway play. --OGRastamon 01:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone would care to add a few bits of information concerning the differences between the original and the restored edition, and the reason behind it? --212.202.184.238 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should there be some mention here of Warren's original version of the book--the so-called "Restored Edition"--in which the main character's name is Willie Talos?  There is little significant difference in plot, but historically I think it matters.--Ramon omar 23:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone would care to add a few bits of information concerning the differences between the original and the restored edition, and the reason behind it? --212.202.184.238 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original version of the book

message: Do we think there should be seperate articles for the movie and book versions, or perhaps combing the two movies into one page, it seems odd for the three of them to be seperate in the manner they are.
As a person who has read the book and saw the 40's version and will see the new version, I think the novel should be seperate from the movies. The book is drastically different and stands on merit of it's own. Yanksox 03:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperating Movie and Book?

message: There was a TV film in 1999 with the same title but a different subject - see [[Royal Norfolk Regiment WW1 history.GraemeLeggett 12:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other film with same title 

message: There are quite a few, non-background related details in the various character descriptions that really give out the plot.  Would it be insane to either WARN the reader at the top of the page, or creating separate section that contains the plot information?
It's funny how people go through such great lengths to spoil every bit of a movie upon it's release on wikipedia and jump at the chance to tell people "you shouldn't have looked at the page if you didn't want to know", yet this never seems to happen with classic literature. I understand the people who tend edit pages for books are probably a little more sensible than the people who edit movies but I would think the ranking editors would at least try to show some consistency.
What's worse is shitty obscure movies usually get a short blurb, but good and popular movies get a 3,000 word description. 66.167.32.244 (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot spoilage 

message: It seems the discussion of the novel should include that it was inspired or influenced by the career of Huey Long. I believe that was what people understood when the novel was first published, and also in the years since then. This factor deserves more than a link at the bottom of the page. Long's character and career fascinated people.--Parkwells 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to Huey Long and his career

message: The image :Image:RobertPennWarren.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:RobertPennWarren.png

message: How is the exact word count notable or relevant? Seems like trivia to me, certainly not something that should be in the lead sentence. 24.118.76.70 (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've removed this from the opening sentence. Roberticus  talk 11:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  102,345 words? 

message: Substituted at 07:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment