Talk:Twilight (novel series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Breaking Dawn inspiration

I just wanted to point out to this information found in Stephanie Meyer official site. There it says that Breaking Dawn also took inspiration from The Merchant of Venice. I think it may be relevant to add it to the inspiration and themes section. Here is the link to the official Breaking Dawn FAQ, questions 4 and 5 ("Why the big build-up for a fight that didn't happen?" and "What was the other book besides Midsummer Night's Dream that you said influenced Breaking Dawn?") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.127.38.49 (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Suicide" Shakespeare photo?

Could someone please perhaps provide an image of the series of books which doesn't have a Shakespeare with "SUICIDE" scribbled on it (multiple times), as well as some unidentified Arabic along with tons of other text? It really doesn't look encyclopedic (or professional, it looks like someone was trying to sneak an image of their highschool yearbook in). I was considering removing it myself, but thought it might be better if someone could replace it with an appropriate image....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was replaced for a short time with a more appropriate photo, but apparently it was deleted from the commons for 'copying protected book covers' (even though it was allowed under fair use on Flickr). Not sure why, but I agree- the current picture is terribly un-encyclopedic and should be removed. Mezzomaybe (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I have uploaded a new picture to the article, without the "SUICIDE SHAKESPEARE" and thi stime with "Bree Tanner" as it is also a part of the saga. Mo HH92 ^Talk 16:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Much better, thank you.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.196.90.230, 1 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the last line, the article still refers to the third movie in the future tense as something like "will be released" and should be "was released"

128.196.90.230 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Chzz  ►  11:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done

translation into 38 languages?

The source says that its been translated into 37 (both) and the text says that its been translated into 38. Could someone change that? I would do it myself, but I'm too stupid to find the Edit button - forgive me^^ Littlepanimausi (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Housel

Shouldn't Rebecca Housels work about Twilight be listed, too? [[1]] 84.56.253.206 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request from 84.57.133.66 (talk), 8 July 2010

Please add german as language --84.57.133.66 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done There is no article for the Twilight series in German. There are articles for the separate books, however, and I will make sure there are links to the German articles in those articles. Also, in the future, please use {{editsemiprotected}} when requesting an edit. It helps us get to the request quicker --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Impartiality

Isn't the idea of these pages to give an impartial view of a topic, as opposed to a gushing review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.211.116.201 (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Young Adults"

The introduction to the article states that the book is most popular among "young adults." For better accuracy, "young adults" should be changed to "teenage girls" or "young women." I believe that this change should be seriously considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whittcal (talk • contribs) 23:29, November 22, 2009

Based on what? --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Teenage girls would sound too biased, IMO. And anwyays, the Saga is marketed towards YOUNG ADULTS and not TEEN GIRLS and plus Twilight is not categorized as chick lit so young adults is right.Mo HH92 ^Talk 03:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What about all the twi-tard 30 and 40-something soccer moms?Ndriley97 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or the gays? All of this is OR, though. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And there is quite a few guys about 14, 15, 16 who like to read the books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily0062 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

YEAH SOME GUYS MAY FIND IT INTERESTING TO KNOW THE STORY. AND FOR SOME DUMB REASON THEY MY LIKE THE WHOLE ROMANCE THING. OR MAYBE THEY JUST ENJOY VAMPIRESPunksk8r99 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

Just wondering, shouldn't this article be renamed "The Twilight Saga" instead of "Twilght (series)"?? The Twilight Saga is the proper name, isn't it? --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected Page?

Just suggesting that this page should be either fully protected or semi-protected because it attracts people who detest the Twilight Saga and therefore edits the page to make up some random stuff about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but its getting rediculous now. I have had to change it a few times (Only Minor things) but its unfair on the editors who have written paragraphs, to see their work being disrespected by removal and then slander. Sorry for going on, but it's just not fair. Thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily0062 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you don't want to see criticisms of these books is NOT valid cause for page protection, nor does your love of these books make negative opinions of these books "made up". These books have recieved an incredible amount of negative reviews and criticism, and while the Twilight series is one of the most popular of all time, it is also in many ways one of the most hated of all time, and those viewpoints have an equal right to be expressed in this article. That is the DEFINITION of "Neutral Point of View". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 12:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently protected because of constant, excessive vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has been locked for EIGHT MONTHS, and despite many people pointing out that this article DOES NOT have a neutral point of view, it has not been edited to reflect this. Obviously, those who are able to edit this article have no interest in fixing the POV. Keeping this article locked clearly serves no real purpose but to keep this article in the state it is at present. 108.48.78.217 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Werewolves?

It's specifically stated in the books that the Quileutes aren't werewolves, that should really be changed so it's not inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.59.219 (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reception, influence, and controversy

this section needs to be broken up, it's too mashed together

also, it seems biased in the praise of Twilight, without giving enough attention to the overwhelming criticism--99.101.160.159 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the series at all, and so I see your point. In my opinion, it seems strange to have the reviews broken up by well-known people who like them...also, it seems to be more about popularity than negative criticism. Also, in the gigantic paragraph when it's compared to Harry Potter (purely just because it's popular and fantasy), there isn't the Stephen King quote, which is found 3 paragraphs later. The beginning is gushing with the positive sides of reviews, then with famous celebrities who like the series, then about how it is so popular, which of corse is a cause for many reviewers to compare it to Harry Potter, and then there's a bunch about people flocking to Forks (al this should deserve it's own "popularity" or "legacy" section), that misplaced quote from Stephen King, and then FINALLY the criticism. Which is not much.

I also have a problem with the sentence: "Referring to the series' enduring popularity and fandom, USA Today said, "Move over, Harry Potter".[49]" Actually, the USA Today reviewer was pointing to the fact that Eclipse had topped Deathly Hallows on the USA Today Bestseller List. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, as someone who's experienced the widespread dislike of this series first-hand numerous times I found it quite baffling how biased in favour of it this article is. Check the Justin Bieber article for a good example of how this section should look. --Rogington (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is incredibly biased and makes almost no reference to the HUGE amount of negative criticism of the book series or of Stephanie Meyer's writing. But of course the article has been locked, meaning nobody can tag it for it's clearly non-neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 12:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed that tag, after deleting one full paragraph detailing the praise for the book. If you read the entire section carefully, you'll find that a lot of criticism HAS been covered in the article. And please stop making lurid allegations like "this page was locked so that nobody can tag it". Ilov90210 (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, tried to break up the reception to be more easily readable, and added in some of the criticisms/controversy to create NPOV. Lemme know what you think? Koothrappali (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Koothrappali

Edit Request

Please remove that link to wikia.

Information should be added to the article about Midnight Sun, the unpublished, partially written book by Meyer which tells the same plot as Twilight but from Edwards point of view. The initial chapters of the book were leaked on the internet, so Stephanie ceased writing the book. She then released those chapters on her website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkc43 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Already there. Andrea (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Marking it as Done then. →Στc. 07:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Influences

I can see how New Moon is based on Romeo and Juliet given the very close plot similarity, but, honestly, what is the relation if any between Eclipse and Wuthering Heights ? Edward doesn't remind me of Edgar and Jacob is nothing like Heathcliff.187.34.79.73 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Meyers if the name "Cullens" is based on a word play on "Collins" from the Dark Shadows 60s/70s drama (or more specifically Barnabas Collins)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.3.104 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights is a major influence on the book and there are a few references to it and a few things are loosely based on it but the books themselves are not based on it. Nor are the characters. There are also references to Romeo and Juliet and some things are also loosely based upon it but also not much. Stephenie Meyer has said these things in numerous interviews and has even had a few things on it on her website but I'm pretty sure they're gone now. Sazza21 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuity errors in the film.

as an example, at the end of the film when in hospital Bella has nasal prong oxygen which shifts between being over her eyes, then over her cheeks and then back over her eyes when with Edward.

More are surely present and might be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.243.219 (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are called movie mistakes. They are in every movie ever made. If you look hard enough, you can see multiple of them in any and every film. That is in now way relevant to this article. Sazza21 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

a teenage girl will try to win the heart of a vampire or werewolf.

Twilight is a series where a teenage girl has to choose the heart of a vampire or a muscular werewolf. this series started by Stephanie Meyer. there is the books Twilight,Twilight saga:new moon,Twilight saga:Eclpise, and Twilight saga breaking dawn. the main characters are Isabelle Swan, Edward Cullen, and Jacob Black.--98.92.59.192 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 98.92.59.192 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

All of that is already in the article, except written properly and in an encyclopedic tone--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Influence of creation of Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy

An interesting fact, too substantial to omit, is that the Twilight series provided the basis for the record-breaking 'Fifty Shades' series of erotic fiction. It it well and widely documented that the latter series developed from Twightlight 'fan fiction', which speculatively developed the two leading Twilight characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.14 (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephenie Meyer's was going to add to the series by writing another novel, from the character Edward Cullen's point of view.

Rename

I think the article should be renamed The Twilight Saga, because that is the official name of the series. Charles Essie (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

24.109.232.42 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: - You've provided no details of the edit you propose. Begoon ^talk 16:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Twilight (series) → The Twilight Saga – This the both the proper and most common name of the series. Charles Essie (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. No substantiation for nom's claim that proposed title reflects most common name of the series. --В²C ☎ 19:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is the official name of the series that appears on all the book and film covers. Charles Essie (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but you have not substantiated that either. Link? Anyway, the name most commonly used in reliable sources is far more important, and that's presumed to be the current title until shown otherwise (proposer/supporters have burden of proof). --В²C ☎ 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Born2cycle When you say "No substantiation for nom's claim" is this because you have checked and know that there is "No substantiation for the nom's claim" or because "No substantiation has as yet been presented for the nom's claim" or something else? GregKaye 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • None has been presented; I have no idea if any exists. If the substantiation exists; it should be cited, so N participants don't have to go looking for it when one nom can do it. If it doesn't exist, there should be no proposal. Most moves are either obvious or substantiation is provided. I'm willing to consider changing my !vote upon presentation of compelling evidence supporting the commonly used claim in the nom. Of course. --В²C ☎ 22:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until evidence is provided per В²C. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Twilight (novel series), since the film series is also a series. The franchise article should be created at The Twilight Saga, and not move the novel series -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Twilight Saga, though the nominator should've done research, so could you have, B2C. Like, erm, the official website being http://www.thetwilightsaga.com/. WP:NATURAL leads me to support. I would now like to ping FoCuSandLeArN and GregKaye, and bop Charles Essie on the head with a trout for making me put "http://www.thetwilightsaga.com/" into my browser history - eww. Red Slash 16:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm deeply sorry. I hate also hate The Twilight Saga, I tried watching the first film and I simply couldn't finish it. Charles Essie (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Even if I were willing to visit that website, that's hardly a reliable source. There's nothing wrong with the current parenthetic disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 02:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: the burden of proof is always on the proponent. That notwithstanding, how the producers named the film adaptations is not a viable rationale. We need to examine how the RS treat the works; if that is The Twilight Saga then so be it, but so far I'm unaware if it is. It looks as if people are letting their fanatism take over their editing. Is everyone here new to move discussions? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Red Slash do whatever it now takes and thanks for taking one for the team GregKaye 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Brah, anything for the 'pedia. I'm sure I'll get another man card someday... ... ... Red Slash 23:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume that was a joke, FoCuSandLeArN? Please tell me that was a joke. Also, could you read WP:NATURAL and tell me what you think about the move afterwards? Red Slash 23:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I the one that needs to take some crazy pills here? Nom stated "the proper and most common name of the series" but provided no evidence. В²C subsequently requested said evidence, a comment which I logically seconded. I'm still awaiting said evidence. If and when it is provided I'll proceed to review it. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN: Well, Greg, B2C and I are three of probably the top ten people in all of Wikipedia with experience in move requests. I'm not sure I've ever seen you around one (this is not intended as an insult, I just don't remember seeing that name before). That's why I assumed you were joking. As for evidence, well, the official name clearly contains "Saga", and I provided a source. That's good enough to move as is barring evidence to the contrary, per WP:NATURAL. Red Slash 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Article traffic statistics show similar pageviews for both Twilight (series) and The Twilight Saga (film series), so there is no clear primary topic. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  And when we don't have a clear choice based on popularity, we go to WP:NATURAL and pick the title without parentheses, right, Sovereign Sentinel? Red Slash 16:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  Red Slash: Again, you did not provide evidence, you provided the official website of the works (which is pulling our legs). We require evidence that the RS treat them more commonly as The Twilight Saga. I've performed a perfunctory search and series returns almost 3 times the results (in news sources such as reviews) as the term saga does. Do you have any solid arguments to support the move or will you just continue to link acronyms we're all familiar with? You're forgetting the overarching principle of that exact same policy that states: generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. Note: I'm not discussing the use of parentheses, I'm discussing the action of moving. If you want to propose Twilight (series) → Twilight series, please do. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  FoCuSandLeArN: NO WE DO NOT require evidence for the one being more commonly used than the other if the less common one is naturally disambiguated and the more common one is not. Have you still not read WP:NATURAL? I really, really could not care less about the move in either direction, but I feel like I'm going crazy referencing our rules to someone who suggested that I was the one who was new to move discussions. Have you still not read WP:NATURAL? How then do you think the no-parentheses title has to be as common as the title with parentheses, when that policy explicitly states: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." We virtually always have a preference for parentheses-free titles, which means we don't need full equality of RS usage. Red Slash 21:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  Again, as I pointed out above, I'm not talking about the use of parentheses. Do what you will. I'm tired of this futile back and forth. My !vote remains. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment while http://stepheniemeyer.com/twilightseries.html consistently presents twilight as a series, a search on site:http://stepheniemeyer.com/ saga present 57 results amongst 96 pages immediately providing quotes such as "As the author of the Twilight Saga, I control the copyright and it is up to the owner of the copyright to decide when the books should be made" and "the second book in the Twilight Saga,".

I would like to see a move to something like either: Twilight (book series) or The Twilight Saga (book series) as the current title is not disambiguated from The Twilight Saga (film series). Ngrams show that, while references to book, novel and fiction have remained in proportion with each other, proportionate uses of "book series" have dramatically increased. GregKaye 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. If my understanding is correct, The Twilight Saga is the name of the film series. With the books, it only seems to get use with The Twilight Saga: The Official Illustrated Guide. In any case, Twilight is the common name of the book series (and most likely the film series too, but that's neither here nor now). Chase (talk | contributions) 14:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, even if we were to move the article, it would not be the primary topic over The Twilight Saga (film series) – 80% of the films bear that prefix, compared to none of the books – and would need to be titled The Twilight Saga (book series). In any case, Twilight (series) is more concise; I wouldn't oppose a move to Twilight (book series). Chase (talk | contributions) 14:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's not the name of the book series. ONR (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Twilight (novel series). (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Twilight (series) → Twilight (book series) – Just as The Twilight Saga (film series) has specific disambiguation to prevent readers from confusing it with the book series, this article should have specific disambiguation to prevent readers from confusing it with the film series. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. And then what? Twilight (series) becomes a dab page? Most people will Google and click on the desire link. But, the few who might arrive here somehow (how?) looking for the film series, the hatnote link will set them straight. --В²C ☎ 01:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support WP:PRECISE Ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. The current title fails WP:AT by not being precise enough to identify the topic of the article, there being multiple series called "Twilight". The current title should point to the disambiguation page Twilight (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The alternate name "Twilight (novel series)" proposed below is preferable for me, but the current nomination is also acceptable. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support no one types in (foo) anyway, this is of ease to mobile readers, B2C comment above should be ignored as a long long long history of opposing recognizable and distinct titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per 67.70.32.190. В²C Twilight (series) Currently receives an arguably inflated 862 links from other Wikipedia namespaces. I doubt that anyone would turn it into a dab page. GregKaye 09:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • So it would remain a redirect to the new title? Then what's the point of the move? --В²C ☎ 22:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Twilight (series) could point to The Twilight Saga (dab page). Chase (talk | contributions) 01:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support move, but oppose any redirection of Twilight (series) to any title including "The Twilight Saga", as "The Twilight Saga" refers solely to the films. ONR (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. WP:Precice and Recognizability. Redirect the current to Twilight (disambiguation), the very few who land there could be looking for multiple things on that disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Happy to go Twilight (novel series), per WP:BOOKDAB. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Consider that on Wikipedia both "novel series" and "book series" are used. Which is better suited? — the Man in Question (in question) 23:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Book series" is more normal. ngram

According to definitions in the articles, Book series and Novel series-->Novel sequence, for these books "book series" would be correct and "novel series" incorrect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, "book" is a less specific word than "novel", so it's going to be more common. "Cow" is more common than "angus", but sometimes it's going to be more correct to say "angus". And "novel series" as a redirect to "novel sequence" is a poor redirect and should be rectified; the determining word in that case is "sequence", not "novel". "Book series" doesn't bother me, but "novel series" makes more sense to me; after all, most encyclopedias are "book series", and that's not what's being referred to here. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BOOKDAB recommends "book" for non-fiction books, so "(novel series)" would be more appropriate. In fact, per your links, that seems to be how book series vs. novel series is currently delineated on Wikipedia, save a couple of exceptions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Also note that we have Category:Novel series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to Twilight (novel series). "Series" is insufficient as there is also a film series, but per WP:BOOKDAB "book" in disambiguation is usually reserved for non-fiction works. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - As it stands now having "series" with nothing else is extremely confusing (IE could mean TV, Film, Book or Web Series), I would also say Book sounds better than Novel. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to "Twilight (novel series)" per WP:BOOKDAB and since there is no primary topic for "series" with the books and films being equally prominent. "Twilight (series)" can redirect to Twilight (disambiguation). Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Twilight (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090129085544/http://astrology.yahoo.com:80/channel/parenting/oh-no-not-twi-moms-355795/ to http://astrology.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/oh-no-not-twi-moms-355795/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100619022648/http://www.creationent.com/cal/twilight_az.htm to http://www.creationent.com/cal/twilight_az.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Twilight (novel series)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I just found one factual error in the text. Edward never messes with Bella's car so she can't go see her friend. Her dad is paranoid that she is going to sneak out one night so he disconnects the battery in her truck. Edward simply makes Bella aware, in the morning, that he heard Charlie re-attaching the battery cables. On page 299 of Twilight, is when Bella says that Charlie thinks she is sneaking out and on page 313, Edward tells her that Charlie had left for work after reattaching her battery.

Substituted at 22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Twilight (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208090236/http://www.collider.com:80/2010/08/03/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-2-release-date-november-16-2012-release-date to http://www.collider.com/2010/08/03/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-2-release-date-november-16-2012-release-date
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201143401/http://meridianmagazine.com/books/080806vampire.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/080806vampire.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615075733/http://thetwilightsaga.com/page/the-twilight-saga-the-official to http://thetwilightsaga.com/page/the-twilight-saga-the-official
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223171500/http://news-briefs.ew.com:80/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html to http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Twilight (novel series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collider.com/2010/08/03/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-2-release-date-november-16-2012-release-date
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080902202116/http://chbookstore.qwestoffice.net/fa2006-08.html to http://chbookstore.qwestoffice.net/fa2006-08.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/07/01/eclipse-opening-breaks-records/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Too much criticism

I think there is too much coverage of the criticism of Twilight in this article and not enough coverage of the positive reviews. Lev Grossman gave Meyers more substantial praise:

The way she manages the reader's curiosity, maintaining tension and controlling the flow of information, is simply virtuosic. She creates a compulsion in the reader that is not unvampiric. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734838,00.html#ixzz2P8tbEFrq

...and Fresh Air book critic Maureen Corrigan praised the first novel for expressing "female longing." There is so much feminist criticism of Twilight in this article that one would think there is no possible feminist take on the books that is positive. I think a nuanced feminist appreciation of Twilight is quite possible. The section on positive reception quickly turns to a discussion of its popularity despite (it is implied) mediocre merit. It would be better to see the saga as an inkblot of where we are as a culture re: sex and gender, with Meyers as the medium who dreamed up an effective metaphor. If the article weren't locked I would add Grossman's praise of Meyers' story telling abilities and perhaps track down the citation to add Corrigan's praise as well. 76.254.21.120 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that they chose Kristen Stewart ro play the role of Bella really offends me since Im the Stewart and I was the one iinfatuated with Jacob long ago and Kristi betrayed me as a sister through my girlish crush and altered everyones lives and now I get beat up for it and treated like less than nothing when I always had feelings for Jacob and Im sick of other people pretending to be me.

Granted this is all fiction since we were kept apart due to Kristi

Although obviously if that hadnt happened jacob wouldnt be such a disappointment as a person mentally I dont think. RCCola115 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Source on 750,000 Book deal?

Sorry if Im just being dumb but the source (21) for the amount of her first book deal just links to a Harry Potter article. It has no mention of Twilight or this amount. I dont even think the article has an embedded video. Please delete this if im wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.246.87 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)