This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Don't know if this is relevant to the article, but I moved it from a backwater to, perhaps, the correct place if it is. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28 27 January 2007 (GMT).
I don't think this should be classed as horror.( 84.67.14.16 10:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)).
it's defenitly not horror.
Image:Seasonsking.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Editions section. It was a list of all editions of the book (hardcover, softcover, second printing, etc). that would likely only be of interest to an extremely hardcore book collector, not someone wanting to find out anything about the contents of the book Different Seasons. 162.136.192.1 ( talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There should be a short plot summary of each work from Different Seasons. I'm just too lazy to do it.
Since there has been no discussion of the proposed merge of each article for the separate novellas collected in this book, an action I personally do not agree with, because each story is a well-known standalone work, in most cases serving as original material for acclaimed feature films, I am removing the merge notice. Jmj713 ( talk) 15:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:AnmaFinotera: I fully support your call for merging the various little-known unpublished Stephen King works into one unified article, Unpublished works by Stephen King. However, I cannot support merging of articles of novellas from Different Seasons, as that goes against all other articles we have on Wikipedia for Stephen King's collections, where each different piece of fiction has its own article, be it a novella or a short story. They are all notable enough on their own, especially the novellas from Different Seasons, some of which have been published separately from the collection, and have been adapted to acclaimed films. Jmj713 ( talk) 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I support merging to the title of the collection and reducing the length of the plot summary to a summary-length. I generally consider anything more than three paragraphs of plot summary to be probable fanwanking, so I certainly won't bother reading the article in the state it's in now. - Banyan Tree 11:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Different Seasons isn't really a very notable book and its hard to find sources on it alone, I support merging. Just because its written by Stephen King doesn't mean its notable, most of his books have a few reviews and his short stories don't really have any (also see WP:PLOT). Also, Stephen king is definitely not considered historically significant. Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 06:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Random stranger here. My opinion is that they shouldn't be merged into the "Different Seasons" collection page. The reasons: Three of the books in this collection have major motion pictures adapted from them, at least two of the novellas were released individually later (Shawshank and Apt Pupil that I know of) and due to critical impact of the stories (in both novella and movie format). To say that King is not 'historically notable' is complete nonsense, and a statement made from ego; if only for the fact that he's sold more books as a genre writer than anyone else of any fiction book-type, he becomes historically relevant; but being that this discussion is contextually regarding these books and THEIR historical relevance, I think it's fitting that they have their own pages, as they're clearly well loved by the public(and this site is designed for the benefit of the public). Check IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes(movie) or amazon(book) for the public's reception to The Shawshank Redemption for reference. I would like to point out that the proponents for merging, in this case, come off as people who are plainly anti- Stephen King, wholly. I would hedge a bet that this 'Fearstreetsaga' user is a big R.L. Stine fan, and just doesn't like the fact that his favorite author is less successful than the one being discussed here. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.100.100.187 (
talk) 12:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this should be merged with the "Different Seasons" page, nor should any of the other individual novellas within this collection. I do however believe their individual pages should include publication data; revision notices and dates, cover changes and dates, republishing notices for those in the collection that were published separately and dates, etc; the additional data should be included and clearly stands outside the scope of the "Different Seasons" collection page. I also don't think it would be appropriate to include all the misc data on the individual novellas on the main collection's page, as that would make that page rather long... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Onlyiwillremain (
talk •
contribs) 12:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I do have to agree that the fact that it has been adapted to a major motion picture is significant. However, to the IP address, I find it offensive that you're making assumptions about me, and discourage anyone to believe that. Children's literature and adult literature are two different things altogether. Also, that statement is completely irrelevant. The fact is, Stephen King is not historically significant because his books have not received many major awards, and are not widely examined in schools. And I still stick to what I said earlier, as it would be nearly impossible to expand the short stories past a simple plot summary, and would be of little to no use to anyone who has already the stories. Fails WP:N. Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 05:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Don't know if this is relevant to the article, but I moved it from a backwater to, perhaps, the correct place if it is. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28 27 January 2007 (GMT).
I don't think this should be classed as horror.( 84.67.14.16 10:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)).
it's defenitly not horror.
Image:Seasonsking.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the Editions section. It was a list of all editions of the book (hardcover, softcover, second printing, etc). that would likely only be of interest to an extremely hardcore book collector, not someone wanting to find out anything about the contents of the book Different Seasons. 162.136.192.1 ( talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There should be a short plot summary of each work from Different Seasons. I'm just too lazy to do it.
Since there has been no discussion of the proposed merge of each article for the separate novellas collected in this book, an action I personally do not agree with, because each story is a well-known standalone work, in most cases serving as original material for acclaimed feature films, I am removing the merge notice. Jmj713 ( talk) 15:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:AnmaFinotera: I fully support your call for merging the various little-known unpublished Stephen King works into one unified article, Unpublished works by Stephen King. However, I cannot support merging of articles of novellas from Different Seasons, as that goes against all other articles we have on Wikipedia for Stephen King's collections, where each different piece of fiction has its own article, be it a novella or a short story. They are all notable enough on their own, especially the novellas from Different Seasons, some of which have been published separately from the collection, and have been adapted to acclaimed films. Jmj713 ( talk) 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I support merging to the title of the collection and reducing the length of the plot summary to a summary-length. I generally consider anything more than three paragraphs of plot summary to be probable fanwanking, so I certainly won't bother reading the article in the state it's in now. - Banyan Tree 11:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Different Seasons isn't really a very notable book and its hard to find sources on it alone, I support merging. Just because its written by Stephen King doesn't mean its notable, most of his books have a few reviews and his short stories don't really have any (also see WP:PLOT). Also, Stephen king is definitely not considered historically significant. Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 06:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Random stranger here. My opinion is that they shouldn't be merged into the "Different Seasons" collection page. The reasons: Three of the books in this collection have major motion pictures adapted from them, at least two of the novellas were released individually later (Shawshank and Apt Pupil that I know of) and due to critical impact of the stories (in both novella and movie format). To say that King is not 'historically notable' is complete nonsense, and a statement made from ego; if only for the fact that he's sold more books as a genre writer than anyone else of any fiction book-type, he becomes historically relevant; but being that this discussion is contextually regarding these books and THEIR historical relevance, I think it's fitting that they have their own pages, as they're clearly well loved by the public(and this site is designed for the benefit of the public). Check IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes(movie) or amazon(book) for the public's reception to The Shawshank Redemption for reference. I would like to point out that the proponents for merging, in this case, come off as people who are plainly anti- Stephen King, wholly. I would hedge a bet that this 'Fearstreetsaga' user is a big R.L. Stine fan, and just doesn't like the fact that his favorite author is less successful than the one being discussed here. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.100.100.187 (
talk) 12:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this should be merged with the "Different Seasons" page, nor should any of the other individual novellas within this collection. I do however believe their individual pages should include publication data; revision notices and dates, cover changes and dates, republishing notices for those in the collection that were published separately and dates, etc; the additional data should be included and clearly stands outside the scope of the "Different Seasons" collection page. I also don't think it would be appropriate to include all the misc data on the individual novellas on the main collection's page, as that would make that page rather long... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Onlyiwillremain (
talk •
contribs) 12:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I do have to agree that the fact that it has been adapted to a major motion picture is significant. However, to the IP address, I find it offensive that you're making assumptions about me, and discourage anyone to believe that. Children's literature and adult literature are two different things altogether. Also, that statement is completely irrelevant. The fact is, Stephen King is not historically significant because his books have not received many major awards, and are not widely examined in schools. And I still stick to what I said earlier, as it would be nearly impossible to expand the short stories past a simple plot summary, and would be of little to no use to anyone who has already the stories. Fails WP:N. Fearstreetsaga ( talk) 05:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)