Talk:Twilight (novel series)

	Twilight (novel series) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 15, 2009 Good article nominee Listed

Novels: Fantasy / Twilight GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article 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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fantasy task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Twilight task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Children's literature GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

I've noticed a few additions to the "Reception" section on this page. On Wikipedia, we welcome and appriciate your contributions, BUT - I'm afraid a few of these aditions are superfluous. Literary criticism (in a nutshell) is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature and the section only includes what the various critics have said about the Twilight books (including both positive negative criticism). Some of the recent additions to the section have NO basis in literary criticism. For example, the paragraph about the Twilight Moms have NO basis with either the criticism of the BOOKS. This section deals with the four books and not the fandom or the films or the merchandise. Middle aged women having cut-outs of Pattinson and Lautner also has no basis in the criticism of the Twilight books and are just commenting in a satirical way on the FANDOM. It has nothing to do with the acclaim and evaluation of the books. Lautner on Jay Leno is commenting on a fan who asked him to sign her panties and is also considered trivial information since it has in NO way related to the books or Meyer's prose.

The popularity of the names of the characters has also nothing to do with the acclaim of the books so I am removing that, too. The Rifftrax link only comments on the movies and not the books so its completely extraneous. However, I am keeping the snippets that have the basis on the criticsm of the books and comment on Meyer's writing. If anyone has any issues, feel free to reply here or just contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Mo HH92 ^Talk 09:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In pure continuation of what you have started, "Influence" should be edited out of "reception, influence and controversy", as well as the parts in that section that deal with the fandom being like a "cult", the celebrity and first daughter references, the similarities in popularity to the Harry Potter series, and the effect the series has had on Forks. Not an ounce of that is standard literary criticism. If a singer and an actor are suddenly notable literary critics, any Craig Ferguson mocking of the Twilight book and film series is equally worthy of mention.

However, I definitely think these things should be moved to a new section dealing only with "influence", as well as several of the recently removed portions. I think the removed parts should be sorted out, but all equally considered nonetheless. Like you said, Jay Leno was definitely unessential information. But on the other hand, there were also two references about the series effecting relationships that I would like to see in this suggested section that were removed. The Rifftrax references should be on the New Moon and Twilight movie articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodyfun (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two things should be separated the way "criticism" is from them, opposed to being lumped together. I sorted them out. Goodyfun (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun[reply]

Looking at the section again, I think it looks sloppy without "Cultural impact" labeled. If any of you see a problem with what I do, please tell me here what looked iffy about my edit if you decide to change it (it's the best way for me to learn). Goodyfun (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun[reply]

First of all, praise and cultural impact is basically the same thing. The sections that you have divided say the same praising quotes about the influence of the series. HOWEVER, there *is* a difference between CRITICISM and BOOK CHALLENGES. A book that hasn't recieved a lot of criticism can be challenged and vice versa.Blytonite (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fallacy. The impact something has does not support its quality, nor does mentioning its impact equate to praise (I.E. someone saying "porn is very popular" does not make you think "high praise"). As an example of what I was doing, the Harry Potter article has social impact and critical response divided, and is more neutral. I'm going to edit the article back to how I had it. Don't change it again until we discuss this further since nobody likes an Edit War. Remember: this is a neutral wiki, not a fan site. I also never mentioned book challenges. That is fine as it is. Goodyfun (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun[reply]

However, ALL of the cultural impact and influence of the Twilight books have been positive. And of course, we are well aware that this is not a fan site but generally for sections that deal with the acclaim and praise of the books, we HAVE to include snippets of praise to justify them with sources. The article *is* neutral as it also contains a criticism section. If anyone has a problem with the edit I have made, please comment here instead of just editing the article without any reasonable response. Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing a little bit of research on this. Cultural impact is when when something has had SOME kind of influence on popular culture. So far, Twilight hasn't had any. For example, Twilight (till now at least) hasn't really had any kind of references in popular culture. Take a look at Cultural impact of Star Wars and the "cultural impact" section of Lord of the Rings if you want to know what exactly is cultural impact. The cultural impact section here just mentions various critics commenting on Twilight and the popularity of the books and the influence it has had on the tourism of Forks. I am once again going to edit this article and submerge the three sections together as it is done on various pages of other series. It will also give the article a more neutral tone just like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. If anyone has any objections, feel free to reply here or write on my talk page. Mo HH92 ^Talk 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of the media criticism of the books and movie as a form of promoting Mormonism. 203.87.64.214 (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source? Andrea (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

[2]

Quote "Meyer insists that she does not consciously intend her novels to be Mormon propaganda, promoting the virtues of sexual abstinence and spiritual purity; but she acknowledges that her writing is shaped by the values she learnt from her family and the church. “I don’t think my books are going to be really graphic or dark, because of who I am,” she said. “There’s always going to be a lot of light in my stories.” from the above source, The Times uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk • contribs)

Neither of those articles criticizes the books for "promoting Mormonism"; all they say is that Meyer's religious and moral values have clearly influenced her writings, though Mormonism is never mentioned. Andrea (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Meyer cites that she is a Mormon, and the links above clearly cite her religion strongly influences her writing. Noteworthy? I guess being "complete" and accurate aren't a requisite goal here. 203.87.64.214 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article also mentions that she is Mormon and that her religion has influenced her writing, under the "Inspiration and themes" section. Andrea (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: The NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/books/review/Schillinger7-t.html

"What subversive creature could dream up a universe in which vampires and werewolves put marriage ahead of carnage on their to-do lists? The answer, of course, is a writer of steamy occult romantic thrillers who happens to be a wholesome Mormon mother of three — a category of one, solely occupied by Stephenie Meyer. The author is well aware of the jarring contradiction between her real and imaginary lives. On stepheniemeyer.com, her Web site (created to satisfy her ravening fans), she admits, “I have been asked more than once, ‘What’s a nice Mormon girl like you doing writing about vampires?’ ” Lucky for her, while her religion’s teachings may frown on caffeine and alcohol for humans, the Word of Wisdom has a flexible attitude toward human blood for monsters; and there’s no ban on big love in the mythical world."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.158.214 (talk • contribs)

I think readding Stephen King's comments about Meyer's writing ability (removed here) should be considered. It's true that the statements are his own opinion, but so are the comments of any critic. King is definitely a person of note within the writing field, and has also occasionally worked as a book critic for Entertainment Weekly. I think that's enough to make his opinion notable enough for inclusion. Thoughts? Andrea (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such comments are generally not relevant in an article about a popular book. Literary quality is not a particularly important consideration for a bestseller, so unless a popular book is so bad that it's a popular discussion topic on its own, such comments should in my opinion not be included. Obviously, the book is written well enough to be read and enjoyed by millions. I personally enjoyed the book (though my initial interest was for ideological reasons) and think it's readable. It's not something I would recommend for literary reasons, but it's not bad.

Now let me state my core argument:

1. There is no indication that the supposed badness of Meyer's writing is a big discussion topic.

2. It doesn't seem that objectively the quality of her writing is bad, since the opinion that her writing is bad is not particularly widespread and the book are quite popular and generally highly rated.

3. It's not unusual for one author to dislike the works of another. For any book you can find a famous author who would criticise it. Tastes differ.

Because of that the opinions of Stephen King are not particularly important, relevant or interesting. Paranoid (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the books are bestsellers are not, critical commentary on the writing should absolutely still be included in the article. Even though millions of people have read (and perhaps enjoyed) the books, we can't ignore the fact that the series has received its fair share of criticism. Wikipedia articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, and so both positive and negative commentary should be considered equally. The only issue here is deciding whether or not Stephen King's opinion on the books is notable. I think it is, for the reasons I stated above: he is a very prominent writer and actually writes as a critic for a notable magazine. Andrea (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you didn't answer my argument. It's not about whether King's opinion is notable - that's a secondary consideration to whether the subject of literary quality of the books is important/notable enough. For example, if you look at the article about the Bible, you would notice that the subject of literary quality is completely absent from the article. Why? Perhaps because it's not very relevant. Ditto for the US Constitution. But it's more than that - on most book pages that I read there are no comments about the writing style. Why is it so important in this particular case whether the Meyer's books are well written? Please explain your opinion. The second question is, of course, why do you think Stephen King's opinion is representative? Paranoid (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did answer your argument. Critical reception (including negative) should absolutely be included in an article about a series of books. The end. Are you really comparing Twilight to the Bible and the Constitution? They are hardly in the same league. Twilight is a form of entertainment, unlike your examples, and notable commentary on its literary quality is without a doubt relevant. If you look at the most-often compared book series, the Harry Potter article contains a literary criticism section that includes both positive and negative criticism that the series has received. Why are you specifically fighting King's comments, and not the rest of the "Criticism and controversy" section? If you are therefore not against the article having such commentary (contrary to what your arguments are suggesting), then I have also already explained why I think King's opinion is notable. Andrea (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen King's statements in many places (newspaper articles, magazine articles, online), and think that they're quite notable. Given that nearly every other entertainment article, from film to television to books, has a "criticism page" (including Stephen King's own) I think it is important to include his comments. If there are any notable responses to his comments they should, of course, be included as well.Jhfortier (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A criticism section is relevant, due to the nature of the books to polarise readers into either "Good" or "Awful" camps. It may be hard to deny but as someone earlier said, there is quite a fair share of criticism due to Myer's writing amongst other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.248.44 (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best comparison is the situation with The Da Vinci Code, which was also a bestseller but had its literary critics. --70.122.122.131 (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea (User:Sergay), I think your edits to the intro tend to represent the point of view that love is more important than immortality. This is a value question. Some people do think that immortality is more important in general and that it was as important to Bella as Edward himself. An argument can be made that what was displayed by the author as merely a teenage crush turned into infatuation only after she learned that Edward was immortal and held a key to Bella's potential immortality. Her insistence on getting to live indefinitely is shown throughout the books in several ways:

• She is willing to approach any vampire to get transformed, not just Edward.
• She is willing to do anything to get transformed, agree to any conditions, etc.
• She sometimes considers living with Jacob as a couple, but she never considers choosing human life and death over immortality (when having the choice).

More arguments can be found in the book on series' philosophy (in the references), but I think it's clear enough that Bella's quest for immortality is indeed very important topic. As one of the ley topics, it should be mentioned in the intro. Also, "charts the period in life" is convoluted and doesn't add any info. Any book charts a period in life. It's better to say what happens there straight away, e.g. "It tells about the murder", "it tells a story of a bus", or "it tells about the transformation". That was my reason for that edit. So I suggest

• a stylistic change to the sentence to make it better than "charts the period in life"
• a mention of the immortality topic in the intro to avoid the POV of emphasising only the love part of the story.

Yours, Paranoid (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of whether love or immortality is "more important". The series is primarily a love story, and there is no shortage of sources to back this claim. I'm not saying that themes of mortality aren't also present in the books, but it's definitely not the focus. The entire series is a story about Bella and Edward's relationship, while her transformation is only a key issue in the final book and is only briefly touched on in the rest of the novels (and when the topic is discussed, it is always linked to her relationship with Edward anyways). Contrary to your opinion, I think that choosing her transformation as the most important point to mention in the intro is what violates WP:NPOV. If it is very widely agreed that Twilight is a love story, then there is no reason not to emphasize that aspect. It seems as though it is your personal opinion that immortality is such an important theme, perhaps based on the one book that you provided as a reference in the "themes" section. Andrea (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An open encyclopedia is a good idea. Too bad it doesn't work, thanks to stupid people with too much free time, Andrea. Personally I do have a life and more important things to do than argue with a wikiaddict. Paranoid (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but your response is kind of rude. The popular conception of the series is a love story, so that gets stressed. To add what you want you need reputable sources that discuss the theme of mortality as important. Go find some then add the info to the article instead of complaining about other users. On it's own your theory is nothing but Original Research, which wiki is against, which is why you need sources. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent Time article, it says that the Twilight series have sold 45 million copies in the USA and an additional 40 million worldwide bringing their total sales of 85 million. I'm adding it to the article and plus updating the New York Times figure. Blytonite (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. I have removed the "abstinence porn" quote because first of all, the source is not very reliable. The fact that the Twilight books are porn is just mere OPINION and cannot be counted as constructive criticism. Abstinence porn does not define if Twilight is poorly written etc...

If you look at the dictionary defination of "porn": "films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal."

So, I completely disagree. There is not EVEN ONE explicit sex scene in the whole Twilight Saga. Bella and Edward do have sex in Breaking Dawn but it isn't described at all. So, Twilight is not abstinence porn.Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd say that the reason the series is so popular is largely because of sexual arousal. Any given book contains at least some scene of a shirtless male mythical creature, described in intense detail for the demographic of teenage females to enjoy. Chances are without such scenes and detailed description the books and films wouldn't be as popular as they are. 'His face startled me – his expression was torn, almost ... pained, and so fiercely beautiful that the ache to touch him flared as strong as before.Blood boiled under my skin, burned in my lips. My breath came in a wild gasp. My fingers knotted in his hair, clutching him to me. Mylips parted as I breathed in his heady scent'.

Someone describe the point of these outside of sexual arousal? I certainly don't find them interesting, but then again, I'm a straight male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.227.110 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is fairly well known feminist magazine. Whether you agree with that particular criticism or not is completely irrelevant as to whether it should be included. All criticism is essentially opinion. Surcer (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think "abstinence porn", which is a contradiction itself, is something of a veiled joke at this kinda stuff. Did anyone see that promise ring episode of south park and the point they were making in that episode? They say that the hugely-profitable, family-friendly, wholesome entertainment industry (ahem...Disney) constantly implies sexuality and lust to excite its viewers, but avoids criticism by blatantly championing abstinence in a contradictory way. This is how you have it both ways. Twilight features a cast of young sexy teenagers, but ironically seems to emphasize the idea of sex to a high degree via the sexual tension (Edward and Bella cannot comsummate their love). By putting a complete ban on something, people will take an interest in it and want it more. --99.177.104.99 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the first post put it, "intended to cause sexual arousal" counts as porn. Ciobanica (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tables that were added to the article here are lovely, but this page is meant to focus on the book series and should not go into so much detail about the films. Since there are two movies now, I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to create a "Twilight (film series)" article. Such tables would be more fitting there, but I don't know if two films are enough to warrant creating a new article. Thoughts? Andrea (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that created that table (a few hours ago). I must say I was shocked to see that Twilight didn't have its own (film series) article. Well the third film is in the works, so it will become a trilogy sooner a later. I say the films merits its own article, as it seems to be successful (box office and critically) enough. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 05:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the table is really good. Well done! There are already two films now and Eclipse will be coming so it is a trilogy. Narnia has only two films and it has a seperate article: The Chronicles of Narnia (film series). So, I'll see if I can create a (reasonable!) article about the three films. Of course, I'll need Andrea's help too! XDMo HH92 ^Talk 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: *takes a deep breath* OK, I've finally created this page: The Twilight Saga (film series). Thoughts? And once again thanks for the tables, Mike Allen. XOMo HH92 ^Talk 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the page. Question -- where did you get the source for New Moon's production budget? So I can add that to the references in the table. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the budget source from here: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newmoon21-2009nov21,0,7638993.story Mo HH92 ^Talk 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Why is none of the Twi-hate online added on this page?! My god, it's like its own fan base, but it's...it's an ANTI fan base! I really think more of that should be in the criticism section, especially when you have websites like twilightsucks.com THAT ARE COMPLETELY DEVOTED to hating Twilight and pointing out the flaws in the book. 70.171.230.185 (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is finding a reliable, third-party source that discusses the online criticism. Because original research is not allowed, an editor's observations can't be included as encyclopaedic content. If you have a magazine article, newspaper clipping, or other reliable, cited source that discusses the online vitriol, please feel free to add it (with references). Jhfortier (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate a paragraph (or two) on the abusive relationship red flags of Bella/Edward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.222.220 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC) You've got a point there, in my humble experiences, Twilight has gotten overwhelming negative criticism and bad buzz here. It also has a 56% from Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes, and a 5.7/10 on imdb as well. I'd like to see some more balanced views here, as this page just seems to gush in its own pride. I know there is a large cult following (...of young girls) over Twilight, but there is also a huge backlash among most peoples that should be acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.104.99 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested that the Paranormal Romance Wikipedia page makes no reference to the Twilight series and this page makes no reference to the paranormal romance genre. Should there be a link? There seems to me me to be a strong connection.--Plad2 (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done

Much better, thank you.

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

{{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)[reply]

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

 Done

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shouldn't Rebecca Housels work about Twilight be listed, too? [[3]] 84.56.253.206 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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