Talk:Goodnight Moon

message: There's a terrific scene in "The Wire" that is a take-off of this.. I can't believe it's not mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.46.130 (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: wever, when reprinted in Goodnight Moon, the udder "for caution's sake was reduced to an anatomical blur" to avoid the controversy that E.B. White's Stuart Little had undergone when published in 1945 (Making of Goodnight Moon, 21)."  I don't have access to Making of Goodnight Moon, so I can't look on page 21.  What WAS the controversy regarding Stuart Little?  I have Googled and can't find any reference to a similar controversy; the only Stuart Little controversy I see was whether the idea of a mouse acting like a human would confuse children.  (As an aside, how literal and lacking in imagination must critics have been then?  Children's literature is packed with anthropomorphized animals.)  Was there a controversy about anatomy in an illustration in Stuart Little?  If so, describe it rather than alluding mysteriously to it?  And, thanks for this article.  Gms3591 (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi Im a walrus :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.178.82 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Goodnightmoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Goodnightmoon.jpg

message: The picture doesn't show up on Facebook... Can somebody fix it? --96.253.50.139 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture!

message: Another parody worthwhile adding? 
Goodnight forest moon: http://www.dzignspace.com/goodnight/ 
Jdkoftinoff (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another parody 

message: The following was deleted by another user so I moved it here for discussion.  HullIntegrity (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the use of "errata". Maybe there should be an "Illustration" category that serves as the visual version of "Plot Summary". I would really like to work this out as my students will be writing articles in the Fall. HullIntegrity (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we restore it under the heading "Illustration Details" or some such? HullIntegrity (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without reliable secondary sources indicating the significance of these details. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder (and I AM wondering) how facts\images anyone can actually see on the page differ from plot summary/synopsis. Is't this rather like saying "The Mona Lisa features and image of a woman"? Now, if comments were made about the STYLE of drawing, that would constitute original research but the images in a picture book are part of the plot, no? HullIntegrity (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

text: This is just for fun: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/sparknotes-goodnight-moon HullIntegrity (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I suppose some of the list could be worked into the Synopsis. HullIntegrity (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Children's books often contain subtle patterns like this in order to encourage children to notice small details. That's why User:HullIntegrity is here. Requiring a secondary source to corroborate that, or categorizing the list of details as trivia, is overly deletionist, in my view. See my reasoning above why I think that this is different from WP:TRIVIA. Is there established Wikipedia policy or style that identifies this specific sort of detail list as regularly subject to deletion, other than WP:TRIVIA (which does not seem to apply)? Further, if such lists are relegated solely to secondary sources, those sources are almost certainly what Wikipedia would classify as "fan" sites. But Wikipedia discourages linking to fan sites. So unless an entire web site dedicated to noting details in children's books emerges, every parent or teacher who wants to tap into this essential feature of children's books will dead-end at Wikipedia, which would be a real shame. Royce (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOSFICT: "small details that might be clear on a word-by-word or frame-by-frame analysis – steps well beyond the normal act of reading or watching a work – should be considered original research and excluded from such articles". WP:IINFO: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". By the way, contrary to your assertion, the list does in fact refer to other media. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Nice. Point taken. SO relevant/significant info on the images could be worked into the synopsis, correct? (Though "normal act of reading" is very very fuzzy when considering a picture book for kids where a "normal act of reading" is to read it over and over and over, usually by an adult to a pre-literate child.) HullIntegrity (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think I have a real issue here: a "normal act of reading" for a picture book for kids is to read it over and over and over. Usually an adult or older sibling initially reads to a pre-literate child followed by an eventual rereading by the child when they become literate and then, perhaps that grown child to their child. We are not talking War and Peace here where only a scholar would read it more than once. "Normal reading" in this case is repetition and attention to detail. That is why these books even exist as a genre. HullIntegrity (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Picture books are not by definition fiction (many are not), but they are by definition works of visual art, so I am not sure which rules should apply here. HullIntegrity (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Illustration Details 

message: As it really is public domain, it needs the treatment- audio file. 198.166.184.206 (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The book itself is definitely not in the public domain. The story might be in the public domain, but the illustrations aren't. So be careful about the audio file, make sure really all of the story is PD. --Conspiration 03:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain treatment 

message: I plan on making changes to the Goodnight Moon article. First, I plan on updating the lead section with a brief description of what the book is about, as well as highlighting the other sections in the Wikipedia article that are not already mentioned in the lead section. Additionally, I plan on separating the “Publication history” section into two sections: a “Publication history” section, and a “Background” section that goes into more detail about the background of the book and its author. I also plan on separating the “Literary significance and reception” section into two sections: a “Reception” section and an “Analysis” section that includes the analysis of the book already present in this section as well as additional analysis of Goodnight Moon. I also plan to add an “Exhibit adaptation” section about a 3D exhibit that showcased scenes from Goodnight Moon. I also plan on fixing punctuation and wording throughout the article, as well as removing some irrelevant information about the animated adaptation, including the “Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Children's Program” information at the bottom of the article. Finally, I plan on adding citations for some sentences that are missing them. All of these changes together will improve the article and bring it in line with Wikipedia criteria since a needed “Analysis” section will be added, sections that are otherwise cluttered will be broken up, and the overall grammatical quality will be improved. Please see an annotated bibliography that includes sources I will use in these updates, linked here. --Jjk2023 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Intended Edits