Talk:Castle Rock (Stephen King)

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

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back[edit]

Wasn't Castle Rock mentioned in thsi...im not sure so don't wanna add it...

Residents[edit]

Do we need this very incomplete list ? -- Beardo 06:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Zone[edit]

It's been a while since I read this book, and I know that Castle Rock is a part of it, but is the book mainly set in Castle Rock? My understanding is that Johnny goes there, and the parts with the killer are set there, but I'd question on if it's the main setting of the book.--Ndoshier

Do you really want to use this?[edit]

(In Needful Things, we are told he died two years after the events of the story. However, he, or a character with the same name, appear in Lisey's Story, which takes place in 2006.)


Could it be possible that Andy Clutterbuck did die two years after the events of needful things (1990 something) and then the same character (who once again died) was in Lisey's story in 2006 (alive and well)?


The answer is yes. Is the Castlerock in needful things the same exact castle rock as the one in Lisey's story or perhaps could it be a parallel castlerock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps joke?![edit]

This link: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=bangor,+me&daddr=Castle+Rock,+Sagadahoc,+Maine&hl=en&geocode=;FUmxnQIdL9DX-ylRUeC3_JqtTDESMH_9blqQYA&mra=pe&mrcr=0&sll=44.379433,-69.211724&sspn=1.586156,2.469177&ie=UTF8&ll=44.363133,-69.279785&spn=1.586582,2.469177&z=9&layer=c&pw=2

Shows 'Castle Rock, ME' the exact distance away from Bangor that it is mentioned as being in 'Mrs. Todd's Shortcut' from 'Skeleton Crew.' That can't be a coincidence, can it?!? (It showed it as being 79 miles the first time but its saying 110 subsequent times, still within the distance of the various routes mentioned by Ophelia Todd in the story.) --216.17.75.89 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Alan Pangborn[edit]

The notice on this page clearly says: To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.. Yet all the action so far is off-piste at Talk:Castle Rock (TV series)#Alan Pangborn.

  • @Piotrus. Simples: Some merge !voter or elseone get the merge done properly with rightful attributions. Seeing a discussion started on the wrong page with controversial merge being backed out seems like a problem to me. you have the required WP:COMPETENCY for example. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge was done while completely ignoring the clear-as-day AFD result, and merger edit-warred over the content.* Fixed the above reply for you. See the discussion at Talk:Castle Rock (TV series)#Alan Pangborn. -- /Alex/21 12:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the AfD was respected. I've left a message at the closer. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTN: I apologise for my oversight in not notifiying you of this conversion earlier. I will immediately say I am concerned your assertion on the summary at [1] Merging is an editorial task after the AfD closes. 0% can be merged. 100% can be merged.... is not compatible with the guideline at Wikipedia:Merging where it is stated "A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page.". I have highlight some because some is more the 0% and incompatible with your assertion of 0%. Again apologies for my oversight in not notifying you earlier as article nominator.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for that. I'll let this run for 48h minimum and maybe up to 168h and if people are feeling the way you are I'll be delighted. The essential problem with Castle Rock (town) as a merge target an any meaningful merge would look WP:UNDUE as no other characters are mentioned, the character seems minimal in the TV series whereas in the The Dark Half seems a much more significant character and a suitable place to describe how the character went on after that book in a sort of appendix section. Thats my thinking anyway. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If doesn't really matter where it goes as long as it goes somewhere. You can put me with whatever gets the most weight. On the topic of mergers, it's up to those who edit the articles to decide if the content is worth including. People can !vote to merge without taking into account that there is no salvageable content, so it can ultimately be decided a redirect is enough. It's enough to have the tag on the talk page so that people may or may not merge at their convenience. TTN (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We differ here: My understanding is Redirect requires no attribution, merge requires attribution, the the WP:Wikipedia:Merging guideline. My opinion is at AfD care needs to be taken to indicate which is being suggested.
  • Comment - The reason I suggested Castle Rock (Stephen King) as the merge target was because the character has appeared in significant roles in multiple works whose main connecting thread was that they took place in that town, as he was the sheriff. At this same time, there is actually very little in the current article that really needs to be merged. So, my idea when proposing that merge target that he would be sufficiently covered in a sentence in the "Population and Geographical location" section, simply saying "Alan Pangborn was the sheriff of the town and appeared as a character in several of the works taking place there" or something along those lines. If, however, people are leaning towards a merge to one of the specific books, as Djm-leighpark is suggesting, I would actually suggest Needful Things over The Dark Half. While his first appearance was in "The Dark Half", he only appeared in a supporting role, where as he was the main character of "Needful Things", and much of the article, including most of the Fictional Biography section, is taken from that book. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rorshacma: The problem with a meaningful (ie copy of significant content with attribution) merge of Alan Pangborn to Castle Rock (Stephen King) is it would immediately have WP:UNDUE weight because no other characters are described in the article. I view what your idea was was 'redirect' with small amount of original on target page. But in that case vote 'redirect' and comment slight modification to target would be required .... (or even do it before voting so you can vote straight redirect). If I have the timing right the original proposer of merge was Zxcvbnm at 04:08, 31 October 2019. (I've had 5 things come up in RL: writing this) In practice we now have I believe have 4 options on the table.:
  1. Implement as Redirect to Castle Rock (Stephen King)(#?section) with addition to "Population and Geographical location" as suggested by Rorshacma. In my opinion does not respect the AfD result and loses contribution attribution of content of source of original article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Implement a Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King): This would likely be a good choice but suffers from any meaningful copy of content would appear to have WP:UNDUE weight. I would need therefore to include a section such as Characters of Castlerock including other characters (as per e.g. Needful Things also that would likely be an optimal solution). A copy from the list at Needful Things could seed the section as a kludge seed solution and peoples would likely improve the section in time and lead to a more complete article over time, would likely need an ugly Template:expand section following my work. I confirm I am willing to undertake such a merging, albeit to end up with a Template:expand section and possibly some cn's.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Implement a Merge to The Dark Half; Has the quality was the first appearance of the character and also not constrained to match entries for other characters, but can risk become WP:UNDUE ofr the article. I am willing to undertake the merge and is perhaps the simplest.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Implement a Merge to Needful Things; as Pangborn's only fully significant. There is an entry in the character list for the work and the content would need to be quite minimised to avoid being WP:UNDUE. I am willing to undertake the merge, it is not my primary choice.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In summary I offer 3 options of a merge should anyone feel strongly one way or the other. I remain not happy with the redirect. Hopefully people can focus on one option. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've had no further comment for the past 48 hours. Bearing in mind I have an feel I have an option to merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King), that was the specific target of the AfD discussion and that is the Rorshacma's preference that is the merge of I intend to perform. Because it precisely matches the merge result of the AfD it is also less controversial that merges to other targets. I may execute the merge in as little as 4 hours from this post, If I have not executed it with 9 days feel free to ping me and I'll attempt to execute it in the 48 hours or give a precise alternative date. My apologies for the delay. Thankyou. (I have a number of RL things on and have other articles concurrent). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally merged the page to a target not specified in the AfD because I felt the participants made an error in selecting the target. Also, they likely voted merge in the AfD because they felt the page shouldn't exist but at the same time the content should go somewhere else. In the spirit of their votes, they simply wanted to get rid of the page, which is essentially deleting it. For that reason, I don't think the content should've been reinstated. TTN is correct about merging being an editorial matter that has nothing to do with the formal result of the AfD. The merge was completed procedurally and thus the page has no reason to exist anymore. Everything else is outside the scope of the AfD. Reinstating the page goes against the spirit of the AfD, which is like fighting to keep the page, which is not what the participants voted for. Formally, per the other editors above, I vote to merge it to somewhere, redirect the page and hope that it gets done without wasting any more time. MorningThoughts (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above I have my indicated my very best intentions I will do a merge (per WP:MERGETEXT) in the timescales above, albeit that are longer than I would normally like. I intend to do it when I am reasonably well convinced WWIII will not commence 2 minutes after I start. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)  Done ... albeit additional characters need to be added to section in due course. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Castle_Rock_(Stephen_King)&oldid=1206573366"