This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article states this is the first of his books not to be made into a movie, which is sorta true, but the last movie (Runaway Jury) was based off the novel of about 10 years ago. It seems to me all of his books are being made into movies, but in chronological order; perhaps they just haven't gotten around to doing the Partner yet. It may be in the works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 ( talk) 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add some more information on the plot. The Hegemarch ( talk) 13:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This plot 'summary' plainly contravenes WP:NOR and WP:NOTPLOT. For example:
This is no good. If @ Thewolfchild:, who re-added the plot section, would like to write an acceptable version, go for it. In the meantime, we're not having this pile of unencyclopedic original research sitting in the article. The argument that the article "needs a plot" (a) has no basis in policy and (b) is not a justification for including unencyclopedic material. Amisom ( talk) 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
First, who said anything about policies being "optional"? Second, why is it when a particular question doesn't suit you, you either disingenuously re-frame it, lash out with a personal attack (or both), or just refuse to answer altogether? Let's try something simple; you've now, somewhat desperately, added a ridiculous blurb under the plot section. How come you made zero effort to improve the plot section after you blanked it almost twenty momths ago? - wolf 16:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Should a lengthy plot section written in colloquial language be added to the article [2] or should the article be left in a bare-bones version with a short plot summary [3] until a more encyclopedic, policy-compliant plot summary can be added? Amisom ( talk) 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think the book should have a "plot" section with any substantive details, for several reasons.
1) Spoils the book. 2) You can't write like John Grisham. If you try, you will fail and the Article will seem "substandard" (compared to the book). 3) You can't write like a professional reviewer. If you try, and you succeed, the Article will read like a gossip column and not an encyclopedia. If you fail, the Article will seem substandard. There are always professional book reviewer's synopsis's to quote anyways. Why reinvent the wheel? 4) That's not why people want to read an encyclopedic article about a book anyways.
There's plenty of other, more important and more interesting information, such as "How many copies did it sell?" "How many times was it republished?" "Did it come out in hardcover, if so many copies did it sell, how many printings in hard cover, did it may the NY Times "Best Seller List", quotes from professional movie reviewers, was it made into a TV show or movie, was there a sequel and/or do any of the characters in this book appear in any other books, does the book incorporate any real life history into it (such as hurricanes, notable news stories, etc...).
In general terms I agree the blank Article is unacceptable, the only question is if the deleted material made it better, or worse.
"The ending is ambiguous" is weak, not encyclopedic, and it screams to the reader "DON'T READ THIS BOOK". I would not include this in the Article unless the intent is to tell everyone what a crappy book it was.
Came here while browsing the "disciplinary board" or whatever that place is called and decided to have a look-see. I suggest you take some time to look at other Wikipedia Articles and model this one on those. Again why reinvent the wheel? Particularly another John Grisham book, if an Article exists for it. Find the best one or two that you can, and do what they did. Hope this helps. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 ( talk) 10:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Redirected The Partner to Partner.( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 04:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The Partner → The Partner (Grisham novel) – There are several topics with this title. 67.149.246.163 ( talk) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article states this is the first of his books not to be made into a movie, which is sorta true, but the last movie (Runaway Jury) was based off the novel of about 10 years ago. It seems to me all of his books are being made into movies, but in chronological order; perhaps they just haven't gotten around to doing the Partner yet. It may be in the works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 ( talk) 23:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add some more information on the plot. The Hegemarch ( talk) 13:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This plot 'summary' plainly contravenes WP:NOR and WP:NOTPLOT. For example:
This is no good. If @ Thewolfchild:, who re-added the plot section, would like to write an acceptable version, go for it. In the meantime, we're not having this pile of unencyclopedic original research sitting in the article. The argument that the article "needs a plot" (a) has no basis in policy and (b) is not a justification for including unencyclopedic material. Amisom ( talk) 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
First, who said anything about policies being "optional"? Second, why is it when a particular question doesn't suit you, you either disingenuously re-frame it, lash out with a personal attack (or both), or just refuse to answer altogether? Let's try something simple; you've now, somewhat desperately, added a ridiculous blurb under the plot section. How come you made zero effort to improve the plot section after you blanked it almost twenty momths ago? - wolf 16:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Should a lengthy plot section written in colloquial language be added to the article [2] or should the article be left in a bare-bones version with a short plot summary [3] until a more encyclopedic, policy-compliant plot summary can be added? Amisom ( talk) 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think the book should have a "plot" section with any substantive details, for several reasons.
1) Spoils the book. 2) You can't write like John Grisham. If you try, you will fail and the Article will seem "substandard" (compared to the book). 3) You can't write like a professional reviewer. If you try, and you succeed, the Article will read like a gossip column and not an encyclopedia. If you fail, the Article will seem substandard. There are always professional book reviewer's synopsis's to quote anyways. Why reinvent the wheel? 4) That's not why people want to read an encyclopedic article about a book anyways.
There's plenty of other, more important and more interesting information, such as "How many copies did it sell?" "How many times was it republished?" "Did it come out in hardcover, if so many copies did it sell, how many printings in hard cover, did it may the NY Times "Best Seller List", quotes from professional movie reviewers, was it made into a TV show or movie, was there a sequel and/or do any of the characters in this book appear in any other books, does the book incorporate any real life history into it (such as hurricanes, notable news stories, etc...).
In general terms I agree the blank Article is unacceptable, the only question is if the deleted material made it better, or worse.
"The ending is ambiguous" is weak, not encyclopedic, and it screams to the reader "DON'T READ THIS BOOK". I would not include this in the Article unless the intent is to tell everyone what a crappy book it was.
Came here while browsing the "disciplinary board" or whatever that place is called and decided to have a look-see. I suggest you take some time to look at other Wikipedia Articles and model this one on those. Again why reinvent the wheel? Particularly another John Grisham book, if an Article exists for it. Find the best one or two that you can, and do what they did. Hope this helps. 2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 ( talk) 10:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Redirected The Partner to Partner.( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm ( talk) 04:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The Partner → The Partner (Grisham novel) – There are several topics with this title. 67.149.246.163 ( talk) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |