Novels: Twilight Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is supported by Twilight task force.

Thanks for "fixing" the headings - although the idea is that the talk goes into second level and the others stay at the top. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys I'm new to the project and something struck me as odd: why is Twilight (novel) tagged as top importance and not twilight (series)? Paycheckgurl (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently got permission to upload a user's set from Flick on a Twilight convention. If anyone is interested in some potential free images related to Twilight, could someone go through the set and let me know if you want a particular image (the only image I added was one of Kellan Lutz and that was because it was labeled). If you recognize any other actors/writers/etc. let me know on my talk page (I won't be watchlisting this page) specifying the url and person's name and I'll upload the image and add it to its respective article(s). Thanks and if you have any questions let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is on the main article discussion. Why should Twilight not be called a Saga on its series page but called one here? The blatant misuse of the work saga here insults me. Twilight is neither:

1. An Old Norse (Icelandic) prose narrative, especially one dealing with family or social histories and legends, OR
2. Something with the qualities of such a saga; an epic, a long story.

I would appreciate it if the subject matter were changed to say 'Task Force for the Twilight Series'. It's just incorrect. The Arguer 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why you should take this as a personal insult - you will not survive long here in wikipedia if you are that thin skinned. Anyway I have changed the descriptive to "series". This is despite the fact that the series does exhibit characteristics that many refer to as a saga (albeit not Scandinavian or Icelandic epic) i.e. is is a longish series with certain complex plot elements. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not trying to appear thin-skinned. The hypocrisy of it is what insults me. I have never encountered fan of Twilight that was thicker skinned than you say I am. They constantly insist on the absolute perfection of their fandom, as such is evidenced in the talk page of Twilight. It just hit me in such a way that made me feel angered because they wanted fairness and completeness in their article, but then failed to carry it on to things they did. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The Arguer 02:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any "hypocrisy" in the page. May well be inaccuracy but that is another issue. I also don't see the relevance of your comment to the issue of the "saga". Anyway all aspects of Fandom should be resisted on wikipedia as you probably know, so we should be aiming to improve the citable and sourceable content relating to a highly successful series of novels (now bringing to be filmed). "fandom" is not - or should not be evident here - if you see signs, improve the text! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring specifically to this page when I called hypocrisy. I was in quite the sour mood that day. I suppose I was under the impression that the Twilight Task Force members were Twilight fans themselves, on the rabid side, and I assumed they felt it was necessary to mis-term the series as a saga, which it is not, as much as people claim it is. It's one of Wikipedia's core values: Even if the entire world believes it, unless it's proven, Wikipedia doesn't believe it. Not that you can prove/disprove that it's a saga. The Arguer 09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here the key point is the different meanings of the term "saga". You are using the more traditionally and "arguably" more technically accurate definition, most usage is however the more general meaning of long narrative with complex plot twists. I have no Fan point to make here - just to be clear. Perhaps people should make clear in the context which they are using. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, but it’s the Twilight Saga not the Twilight Series. It is completely possible to prove that it’s a saga. All one must do is look at the back of any one of the books. The backs list books in the Twilight Saga. There really was no need to go through all the trouble of searching up the meanings of saga. AnonymousPersonage 22:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Aguer, your cited definition itself proves your contention wrong. Each enumerated definition is distinct.

For example, what follows is the definition from yet another dictionary--Encarta:

sa·ga [ sgə ] (plural sa·gas). noun. Definition:

1. series of events: a complicated series of events or personal experiences stretching over a considerable period of time, or a detailed account of such a series of events or experiences ( informal )

Have you heard the saga of our coast-to-coast relocation?

1. long novel or series of novels: a long story or novel, or a series of stories or novels, often following the lives of a family or community over several generations
2. Norse literary genre: an epic tale in Old Norse literature, usually in prose, recounting events in the lives of historical and mythological figures from medieval Iceland and Norway

--Savvy?--68.196.153.114 (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Jasper joined the Amry in 1861 and met Maria in 1863, he was only 18 as he lied about his age when he joined. He was really only 16 when he joined. The page states he was 20, but in the book of Eclipse he says he lied about his age to join the army, if he was only in it for two years he never left his teen age years. So he would be 18 or 19, but i do believe it is 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.193.38 (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Twilight task force/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above article has been listed at AfD. Members of this project may be interested. Your comments are welcome. Brambleclawx 00:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why this task force isn't a joint task force with WP:WikiProject Film ? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Twilight task force articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article Scene It? Twilight awhile back, and I sort of realized that it wasn't tagged by the Twilight task force. Should it be? This is a task force for WikiProject Novels, I'm not entirely sure-- so I'll leave the tagging up to anyone who's around here if it should be. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that discusses how Twilight and Mormonism relate to one another:

• Grossman, Cathy Lynn. "'Twilight' weaves Mormon ideas into supernatural love saga." USA Today. July 7, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]