Talk:Different Seasons

Winter Collection
Don't know if this is relevant to the article, but I moved it from a backwater to, perhaps, the correct place if it is. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28 27 January 2007 (GMT).

Horror?
I don't think this should be classed as horror.(84.67.14.16 10:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)).

it's defenitly not horror.


 * I have added to the article the fact that the stories fall outside the horror genre (though they do have horror elements). marbeh raglaim (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seasonsking.jpg
Image:Seasonsking.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editions
I removed the Editions section. It was a list of all editions of the book (hardcover, softcover, second printing, etc). that would likely only be of interest to an extremely hardcore book collector, not someone wanting to find out anything about the contents of the book Different Seasons. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Summaries?
There should be a short plot summary of each work from Different Seasons. I'm just too lazy to do it.

Merging
Since there has been no discussion of the proposed merge of each article for the separate novellas collected in this book, an action I personally do not agree with, because each story is a well-known standalone work, in most cases serving as original material for acclaimed feature films, I am removing the merge notice. Jmj713 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have restored the tags. Just because you disagree with it is not a valid reason to remove the tags. You started a discussion on my talk page, which of course no one could see and was not the appropriate place for it, and to which you never actually responded. I will now move that here as it already has my reasons for the proposal so others can actually weigh in on it.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

''Copied from User talk:AnmaFinotera: I fully support your call for merging the various little-known unpublished Stephen King works into one unified article, Unpublished works by Stephen King. However, I cannot support merging of articles of novellas from Different Seasons, as that goes against all other articles we have on Wikipedia for Stephen King's collections, where each different piece of fiction has its own article, be it a novella or a short story. They are all notable enough on their own, especially the novellas from Different Seasons, some of which have been published separately from the collection, and have been adapted to acclaimed films. Jmj713 (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the novella articles show any sign that they need separate articles. They are primarily ridiculously long plot summaries. They can all be covered in Different Seasons easily. If they are all individually notable, then it would seem like the Different Seasons article is unnecessary, however in looking at the individual ones, it seemed to me that merging them into its article rather than deleting the Different Seasons article was the better course. Further, just because it was done this way on other collections does not make it necessarily correct. As it is now, all four could easily be merged into Different Seasons with no loss of valid content, once the plots are properly reduced to a more appropriate length. I think one strong article on it, versus five bad ones, would be a better setup. If at some point any one novella has enough content to support a full article, it could still be split out later. As it is now, though, they don't. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As per above, my reasons for proposing the merges are clear. Just because they have films based on them is not, alone, a valid reason to have them each as separate article. They are all stories from this single work, and merging them back here, with appropriate clean up, would make for one good article about all of them, rather than the five sets of plot regurgitation for each. if any every actually produce enough reliable sources to really create full articles for them, then splitting should be discussed, but they shouldn't exist just to exist. As it is now, all fail WP:BK as standalone works, because non reflect significant coverage of the works themselves (not their films and apart from Different Seasons). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The merge notice was up on all these articles for a whole month and nobody raised any discussion on any of the articles. Thus, I decided the issue was moot. As far as notability, let me quote WK:BK: "A book is generally notable if [...] the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". I think Stephen King undoubtedly fits into that category, and thus all his published works deserve articles. It's just a matter of editors working on them to bring them up in quality. Jmj713 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "may be considered notable" != is automatically notable nor that all of his published works "deserve articles" (as no topic deserves anything, either they are notable or not), nor is Stephen King considered "historically significant". By itself, that alone is neither an excuse nor criteria for having unnotable articles. Further, the book was Different Seasons which comprised four novellas. Their later republishing in other forms does not negate that. As standalone works, they currently fail WP:GNG and WP:BK. Merging is an appropriate way to deal with the articles now. If you feel there are so many reliable sources on EACH of those stories to have their own articles, then please show this rather than arguing to keep them separate on an presumed notability and unrealized sourcing. Also, no one raised and dispute, except you, to the tagging either. So no, the issue is not moot. Merge tags have sat on articles as long as two years before the merge was carried out. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I support merging to the title of the collection and reducing the length of the plot summary to a summary-length. I generally consider anything more than three paragraphs of plot summary to be probable fanwanking, so I certainly won't bother reading the article in the state it's in now. - BanyanTree 11:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Different Seasons isn't really a very notable book and its hard to find sources on it alone, I support merging. Just because its written by Stephen King doesn't mean its notable, most of his books have a few reviews and his short stories don't really have any (also see WP:PLOT). Also, Stephen king is definitely not considered historically significant. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Stephen king is definitely not considered historically significant"? You cannot be serious. Also, there are plenty of contemporary reviews of DS. NYT, for one. Jmj713 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, you might want to cite some of those reviews. Second, he is not historically significant [HS] (he was only marked high priority by Wikiproject horror and mid-priority on Wikiproject biography). Secondly, that one source doesn't really make him HS, or every other person who won that award would be considered HS. There really isn't anything to make me believe that he's passes that criterion, and the priority rating for Stephen King proves that. Also, I don't think that alone would warrant an article, unless the person we're talking about is Shakespeare.Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A little googling is all it takes:


 * Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921286,00.html
 * NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/11/books/books-of-the-times-074639.html

Jmj713 (talk)


 * I'm sure there's a few more for different Seasons, but the other articles still remain unnotable and should be merged. You are the only one arguing against it out of 4 people. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of references to "Shawshank". I bet the same can be done for the other stories. "The Body", for instance, was published as a separate book with an adapted text for younger readers. So, like I said before, it's just a matter of editors caring enough about the subject to properly write articles. As Wikipedia is constantly evolving and constantly being edited, that's to be expected. And Stephen King is definitely a notable enough writer to have all his works be considered notable by extension. Saying King is a historically unimportant writer is plain ignorance of the facts. Jmj713 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Shawshank" still does not pass as it does not provide multiple non-trivial references (independent of the subject) for the book and should still be merged (it only provides two trivial ones and two separate from the book). The first one is about "Hearts in Atlantis" and the other one is from the same site, and it is about "Bag of Bones", not "Shawshank". It needs multiple non-trivial reviews or references. Still should be merged until this issue is dealt with. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Random stranger here. My opinion is that they shouldn't be merged into the "Different Seasons" collection page. The reasons: Three of the books in this collection have major motion pictures adapted from them, at least two of the novellas were released individually later (Shawshank and Apt Pupil that I know of) and due to critical impact of the stories (in both novella and movie format). To say that King is not 'historically notable' is complete nonsense, and a statement made from ego; if only for the fact that he's sold more books as a genre writer than anyone else of any fiction book-type, he becomes historically relevant; but being that this discussion is contextually regarding these books and THEIR historical relevance, I think it's fitting that they have their own pages, as they're clearly well loved by the public(and this site is designed for the benefit of the public). Check IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes(movie) or amazon(book) for the public's reception to The Shawshank Redemption for reference. I would like to point out that the proponents for merging, in this case, come off as people who are plainly anti- Stephen King, wholly. I would hedge a bet that this 'Fearstreetsaga' user is a big R.L. Stine fan, and just doesn't like the fact that his favorite author is less successful than the one being discussed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.100.100.187 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I don't think this should be merged with the "Different Seasons" page, nor should any of the other individual novellas within this collection. I do however believe their individual pages should include publication data; revision notices and dates, cover changes and dates, republishing notices for those in the collection that were published separately and dates, etc; the additional data should be included and clearly stands outside the scope of the "Different Seasons" collection page. I also don't think it would be appropriate to include all the misc data on the individual novellas on the main collection's page, as that would make that page rather long... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyiwillremain (talk • contribs) 12:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have to agree that the fact that it has been adapted to a major motion picture is significant. However, to the IP address, I find it offensive that you're making assumptions about me, and discourage anyone to believe that. Children's literature and adult literature are two different things altogether. Also, that statement is completely irrelevant. The fact is, Stephen King is not historically significant because his books have not received many major awards, and are not widely examined in schools. And I still stick to what I said earlier, as it would be nearly impossible to expand the short stories past a simple plot summary, and would be of little to no use to anyone who has already the stories. Fails WP:N. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)