Jump to content

Talk:Five Little Pigs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

October 2007

My book has the name as "Crale". Frickeg 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

Can you explain the "spoiler" to the peop`le who want to read and enjoy the book?? I put my solution but it is not the best of solution.--Ciberprofe (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Maybe you could just put a spoiler warning at the beginning of the plot. As it is now, the plot cuts off abruptly. I think the best solution would be to restore the previous version and add a spoiler warning. 152.33.64.145 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:NDA, WP:SPOIL, and WP:CENSOR. I believe the Wikipedia community has had this battle out in the past, and they just don't do spoiler alerts. The plot summary here might be a bit long, too; someone might look into trimming that. Archaeo (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Can we at least remove the identification of the murderer from the list of characters? I (and I assume others) use the character list to remind myself who everyone is, and when I discovered who was the murderer it really ruined the novel for me.

Incorrect title image

We really need an image which shows the true title of the story as given by Ms Christie, rather than the title invented by its US publishers.Gymnophoria (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The first UK edition of the book should be the main photograph.

The US edition was the true first edition, so that cover is correctly in the info box. The UK cover is now placed in another section of the article. This approach of including two cover images seems to be allowed only Agatha Christie novels, based on some discussions about articles on other novels where there are in effect two different first covers. —Prairieplant (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Original research

I've added the {{original research}} template[1] for a couple of reasons: first, a good deal of the plot summary is actually analysis or interpretation of the plot, as in: "Poirot embarks optimistically", "The differences are subtle", "In the denouement, Poirot reveals the main emotional undercurrents of the story", "Caroline's actions, however, actually prove her innocence", "Poirot's explanation solves the case to the satisfaction of Carla and, most importantly, her fiancé", etc. Second, § References and allusions contains unsourced interpretive statements such as: "Romeo and Juliet are a constant theme in the book" and "Miss Williams remarks disparagingly". Most of the "allusions" themselves are described without citing any sources. Any help finding reliable sources to support this material would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC) (updated)

Sangdeboeuf, the original research flag was removed in May 2018 by another editor. The plot summary seems pretty free of judgmental adverbs like "optimistically" and "most importantly". It is about 50 or 60 words over the suggested limit, but has the flow of the actions, and points out the new information gleaned by Poirot from the five little pigs, which Poirot used to come to a new conclusion as to who the murderer was.
The allusions section has not been touched. It is all probably true, but there are no inline citations for it. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

§ Literary significance and reception is simply a collection of various critics' opinions about the book with no unifying context given. The aforementioned critics are all primary sources for such material – what's needed are secondary and tertiary sources that summarize these various opinions and provide context, to keep the article from becoming simply a collection of trivia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I disagree that reviews of a novel are primary sources; they are reviews and thus secondary sources. The novel is the primary source. If you have other books or articles on this novel, please do add what those sources have to say. —Prairieplant (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf Here are the Wikipedia sections on secondary WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:TERTIARY sources. The newspaper review articles are secondary sources. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. Per WP:PSTS: Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews. Book reviews are not the same as scientific review articles, which are secondary sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf Reviews of books in newspapers and magazines are the most frequent sources of notability used in Wikipedia articles about the books, including novels. I am not sure what is meant by "strong reviews". The reviews are not editorials in those newspapers or magazines. If you can find books written about a novel, like books written about Little Women by Louisa May Alcott or in-depth analysis of the novels by Charles Dickens or Jane Austen, then those are fine additions to an article about a novel that has had more written about it over the years. Much has been written about Agatha Christie; some of her books have more than newspaper book reviews written about them (see a recent article by Stott and Yaseen, from 2016, about The Secret of Chimneys by Agatha Christie, added as an External link to the article). I find the newspaper reviews as adequate evidence of notability of a novel. When you can find more written about a novel, do include it. Your larger complaint is probably best taken up at a higher level of Wikipedia, rather than the talk page for just one of the many novels by one author, Agatha Christie. - - Prairieplant (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five Little Pigs. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five_Little_Pigs/Archive_1&oldid=1257201104"