Talk:Hallowe'en Party

Fair use rationale for Image:Hallowe'en Party.jpg
Image:Hallowe'en Party.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of au pair girl
The article states that the au pair girl (Olga) is from Czechoslovakia. However, my copy of the novel reveals at the end that she is actually from Herzegovina. I can't say for certain if my copy is the same as the British version. 70.193.11.144 (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And what in the world has Vyacheslav_Molotov to do with Czechoslovakia at all? He was Stalin’s minister of foreign affairs after all! 2A01:8C00:FF00:1E8:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

References to actual history
"The novel reflects in many respects its time of publication at the end of the permissive 1960s, but nowhere more so than when a character uses the word "lesbian" in Chapter 15." Sounds an awful lot like original research to me. Is there any reputable source for this claim, or is it just somebody's personal opinion? Jah77 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not know who put that in the article, but I found two sources noting the use of that word, the only time in all her novels, with a search on line and the sources are not copies of this Wikipedia article. I do not know if Barnard noted this, but his book is not on line (is it?) and I do not have a copy at hand. The first source was written in 2000, so I do not think it was original research by that editor, rather it was an unsourced observation. Now it has sources, maybe more or better ones can be found. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Adaptations
Does the Branagh adaptation really deserve mention in the lead? -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Moved it to the Adaptations section. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reason why the recent film adaptation should be mentioned in the lead? There are multiple adaptations covered in the article which haven't been in the lead. Why this one? -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Out of all the adaptations this novel has received, the film is clearly the most notable/noteworthy/well-known — and it's also the only one with a standalone article. If you'd like, we can briefly mention the other adaptations in the lead with something like InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That argument seems to me like recentism. That it's the most known adaptation while it's still in theaters says little to me about its long term notability. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not recentism; none of the other adaptations have individual articles. The fact that the film is currently in theaters is irrelevant (and in case you haven't heard, it isn't doing so well at the box office). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with including it in the article, but I am not persuaded that it belongs in the lead. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead should state the most important and notable aspects of the article. If a subtopic (in this case, a derivative work) warrants its own article, that means it is notable and should therefore be noted in the lead of this article. In a way, you can think of A Haunting in Venice as a "split" or spin-off to this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Pemilligan. MOS:INTRO says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and I don't see how a single recent adaptation would qualify as "the most important points covered in the article." ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As stated above, it's important because it's the only adaptation notable enough to receive its own article. The other adaptations do not have standalone articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is just your personal view of its importance. The lack of articles for other adaptations isn't proof that they aren't notable just proof that nobody has written one yet. The film isn't "important" on its own and doesn't meet the criteria at MOS:INTRO for being in the lede. Wikipedia works on consensus and you are the only person arguing for its inclusion. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are misunderstanding the concept of consensus. Yes, we work toward consensus through editing and discussion, but just because two people disagree with one person does not mean consensus has been reached or that the person in the minority is against consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy.
 * If the other adaptations were notable (i.e. satisfied GNG), articles would have been created for them in the years and decades since their release. The fact that this is not the case is proof that they are not notable — this is a cold, hard fact. To those unfamiliar to Christie's less-known works, the Branagh film is likely how they became aware of the novel's existence; we should make this connection clear in the lead to draw the reader in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lack of an article is not evidence of an absence of notability. Articles don't just appear when something becomes notable. Someone must take the time to create them. People generally don't. There are 75 articles listed on my user page and they were all notable before I created them but for whatever reason nobody bother to start them.
 * You have stated your opinion repeatedly but that doesn't mean MOS:INTRO agrees with you. It is not the only notable adaptation, not the first, and not the most important. Just the most recent. It doesn't belong in the lede. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

To test the claim that A Haunting in Venice is not the only notable adaptation, I have just done a little research on each adaptation listed in this article. The results are not surprising, with hardly any sources even mentioning them in passing. You can see for yourself: With virtually non-existent behind-the-scenes information or critical reception, all clearly fail the notability criteria of the television and books projects as outlined at WP:NTVEP and WP:BOOKCRIT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC Radio 4: News results Newspapers Scholar
 * ITV episode: News results Newspapers Scholar
 * French episode: News results Newspapers Scholar
 * Graphic novel: News results Newspapers Scholar
 * This doesn't prove other adaptations aren't notable. Non-internet sources exist. You also chose very specific search terms. Instead of the nine results you get from googling "Hallowe'en Party" "Agatha Christie's Poirot" "ITV" if you try "Hallowe'en Party" "Suchet" you get 82 results. This aside, "other articles haven't been written" isn't part of the criteria for inclusion in the lede per MOS:INTRO. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about the number of results, you have to click on the actual article and see how what you are looking for is being discussed. MOS:INTRO, which has more guidance beyond the first sentence that you keep citing, states: Unless you can prove that the other adaptations are just as notable (if at all) by presenting a list of sources that discuss them at length and in-depth, they should not be in the lead; on the other hand, A Haunting in Venice, which has received significant coverage from reliable sources, should, because it is the most notable aspect of the  section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did read beyond the first sentence but unless you have references that claim this specific film adaptation is the most important adaptation of the book, we remain at the same place we have been all day. There is nothing about this specific adaptation that merits inclusion in the lede for the book. This article is about the book. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have presented my evidence — there are 4,730 news results for A Haunting in Venice, and every single one of them discusses the film in-depth. This is not the case for the other adaptations, per my previous comment. MOS:INTRO says to note all major, important, noteworthy aspects of a subject; the film is one of them because it is the single most notable retelling of the story. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do those 4,730 news results call the film "the most important adaptation of the novel"? No they don't. A single adaptation of the novel is not important enough for the lede. It is two sentences in the adaptation section, one of which just notes that the film follows two others by Branagh. So one whole sentence about the film doesn't merit inclusion in the lede.
 * We have both given our views and reiterating them endlessly serves no point. Until others chime in we should let this rest for now. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. If no one else chimes in after a few days, it may be a good idea to leave a notice at WT:LEAD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I had guessed, radio silence. I've made a post at WT:LEAD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "unless you have references that claim this specific film adaptation is the most important adaptation of the book, we remain at the same place we have been all day" – No, we don't, because that's not how notability determination works on Wikipedia. What we have here is one adaptation that has proven notable, and some other adaptations that, through fairly extensive attempts to source around for them to see if they are notable, prove not notable, and we have absolutely no reason to mention non-notable adaptations in the lead, because it is not key information for the reader. I think it's entirely reasonable to mention the Branagh film in the lead, and not mention other adaptations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Branagh adaptation is notable enough to have its own article. I don't see that as proof that it should be in the lead of this article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is plain and simple, Pemilligan. The Branagh film has an article and plenty of coverage from reliable sources; therefore, it is notable. The other adaptations do not have articles and have little to no coverage from reliable sources; therefore, they are not notable. The lead of an article should highlight its most notable aspects; therefore, the Branagh film should be mentioned. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That the Branagh film is notable is not in dispute. That's why it has its own article. You haven't convinced me that the film's notability makes it one of the most notable aspects of the novel. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue the film is perhaps more notable than the novel. Every time I read an article that mentions the film's connection to the novel, Hallowe'en Party is described as "one of Agatha Christie's lesser known novels". The lead is meant to draw the reader in. The average reader is more likely to recognize the film's title than the novel. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And there is no such thing as "proof that it should be in the lead". This is not a factual question, like whether the Moon revolves around the Earth. It's a subjective judgment-call consensus discussion among editors (and unanimity is not required).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're overreacting to the word "proof". Let me say then that the argument does not convince me that it should be in the lead. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that this line of thought about The Branagh adaptation is notable enough to have its own article is rather overegging the pudding. It's likely that all of these adaptations are notable enough to have their own articles.  We haven't proven that they're not; we've only proven that one editor decided to write an article on the most recent one.
 * The normal way to determine whether something belongs in the lead is not whether another article has been written about it, but by looking at how much space it properly takes up in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained above, I conducted a search for potential sources that I would use if I were to write an article for the other adaptations. I found barely any, and if I were to create an article today it would most definitely be taken to AfD for failing GNG and WP:NTVEP. MOS:INTRO states: . The most important points, which can be translated to most noteworthy or most notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. "Most important points covered in an article" does not mean "Most notable subjects (in the whole world)".
 * Think that through a few steps: You are saying that the most noteworthy subjects that get mentioned anywhere in the article must be in the lead.  If the most noteworthy subjects in the world were always the ones that went into the lead, regardless of their importance to this particular subject, then any article mentioning any popular subject as a minor-for-this-article point, even as a mere passing mention, would have to be mentioned in the lead.  Your rule would suggest adding information to the lead about apples, friends, death, mothers, and cars, because those subjects are far more notable than this recent film.
 * But that's not how it works. "The most important points covered in an article" are the absolutely necessary basic facts ("it's a book") and the ones that we spend the most time talking about (e.g., it features Hercule Poirot, the critics didn't love it, there were some adaptations later). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously, that's not what I meant. The lead should summarize each section of an article and then highlight the most noteworthy aspects of each section. For instance, if it's an article about an actor, and we're to summarize the awards they've received, Oscar wins are probably going to be a must, whereas smaller awards may be left out. If it's an article about a company, and we're to summarize their products, we're going to mention the ones that have been the most successful or impactful, not the ones that never caught on. And if it's an article about a novel, and we're to summarize its adaptations, we're going to list the ones that are most well-known, the ones that have received the most coverage from reliable sources. Not some obscure TV episodes that barely anyone has heard of. Keep in mind that the lead is meant to draw the reader in; they're more likely to be so if there are things they recognize. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Sometimes the summary looks like "It was adapted into multiple radio shows, television episodes, and films", without naming any particular one, instead of "It was adapted into ".
 * (I think you're putting too much faith in your web searches. Those "obscure" adaptations that "barely anyone has heard of" were in the news several decades ago, but news sources from the 20th century aren't always easy to find online.  The BBC Radio 4 show, for example, was reviewed in The Guardian on 30 October 1993.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One or two sources is not sufficient for something to be considered "notable". The fact that there are no sources on the Internet is already an immediate fail of WP:SUSTAINED. In any case, I don't understand how some editors are disputing the fact that the Branagh film is demonstrably the most notable out of all the adaptations — even if the others are somewhat notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who said that there are no sources on the Internet? The article cites one, and I just told you about another.  Don't mistake "what your favorite search engine puts on the first page or two of results" for "what's on the internet". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then please, show us the list of sources that you say exist, and then add them to this article. Then do the same for the other adaptations, select the one(s) that are the most notable, and put them in the lead. I am not opposed to mentioning the other adaptations if they are found to be notable, but thus far there has been no evidence presented that indicates the others are as notable as the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be "as notable as the film" for editors to decide not to mention any of them by name in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've explained the benefits for mentioning the film — because it draws the reader in with a name they likely recognize. I now ask you to please explain what harm you believe such an inclusion would cause to readers that makes it such a terrible idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that mentioning a particular adaptation draws readers in. Since I don't recognize the name of this film (or the actors in it), I'm naturally doubtful that other readers would be likely to recognize it.  Consequently, your reasons for inclusion seem weak to me.
 * If I were going to advocate for a longer intro, then I'd suggest that the lead for an article about the book should say something about critical reception of the book. We have a ~350-word-long section in the article about the critical reception, and nothing about that in the lead.  A short paragraph that says that it got bad reviews (and earned them, from what I remember of reading the book years ago) and that it was later adapted into radio, television, and film, without going into any particular detail about any of them, sounds about right to me.  If we could find a source, then a line that it has been "translated into n languages" would also be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You've never heard of Michelle Yeoh or Tina Fey??Clearly, this isn't going anywhere. Usually, when I'm in the face of "consensus", I just WP:LETITGO, but in this case, the arguments against inclusion are just too absurd. I'll start an RfC so we can come to a clearer consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article mentions Kenneth Branagh. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You said you didn't recognize ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The only actor mentioned in this article in the description of this film is Kenneth Branagh. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He is mentioned in this article because he is the director, not because he is the lead actor. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC on mention of film adaptation in the lead
The Agatha Christie novel Hallowe'en Party has been adapted for television, radio, and most recently in the film A Haunting in Venice. The film is the only adaptation with a standalone Wikipedia article. In accordance with MOS:INTRO, which says to, is it appropriate to mention the film in the lead? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes – The film is the only one that has an article, so based on existing evidence, it is demonstrably the most notable out of the five adaptations. When summarizing each section of an article in the lead, it is common to highlight one or two of the most noteworthy and significant examples of that section — for example, the most prestigious awards, the most successful products, the most influential figures, and the most scandalous controversies. Searches for sources available on the Internet (including archived print newspapers) for the other adaptations yielded unpromising results, and even if there were a limited amount of press coverage, it is nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NTVEP. Since it is clear that the film is the most notable adaptation, and by extension the most noteworthy aspect of the section, it only seems reasonable to mention it in the lead. The lead is also intended to draw the reader in, and including mention of a film that many readers may recognize will facilitate that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sort of – many of the arguments above (both in favour and against) seem pedantic, and/or invalid. But we're telling the story of the life of novel here, not specifically 'plugging the film'. A brief mention along the lines of the intro above : The novel has been adapted for television, radio, and the 2023 film A Haunting in Venice was loosely based on it. would seem to me to be space well-filled, but It's a subjective judgment-call ultimately.Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've read the discussion above and based on the evidence presented there I'm convinced that mention of the film in the lead is DUE. If articles about other adaptations are written in the future then we can consider at that point whether they should be mentioned in the lead as well. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The film is obviously relevant and should be mentioned. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  21:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I agree that the lead should .  This particular film is apparently so "un-important" that it only merits one (1) single sentence in the whole article.  If it's only worth a single sentence in the body of the article, why should it also get a whole (and largely redundant) sentence in the lead?  I've no objections to mentioning the various adaptations as a group, but not just repeating a single sentence. For the history, see  this edit in mid-September, in which User:Pemilligan moved the sentence out of the lead, this edit in late September from the editor who started this RFC, which adds "A film adaptation, A Haunting in Venice, was released in September 2023" back to the lead (no mention of the existence of any other adaptations, including the ones that are described at greater length in the body of the article, which might mislead a reader into believing it's the only one), and this edit in early October from User:ThaddeusSholto, which removed it again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The very first comment I made after I was pinged to the talk page was a proposed compromise to mention the other adaptations generically. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That would work. Valjean's wording below to do this looks good.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusSholto, it's because adaptation warrants an entire large section with multiple subsections, but none of the adapations are notable except for A Haunting in Venice. So the lead need (in being a summary of the article) to indicate that there have been many adapatations, including that one by name, but no others by name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've given more detailed arguments why in the discussion above this RfC. The subtext here, "and should we also mention the other adaptations in the lead", is a no, because they are not notable and do not belong in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have a rule that says non-notable content can't be in the lead section. Instead, we have a rule that says notability "does not apply to the contents of articles.... Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is  enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For some reason this has been a record week for number of times I've had to say this in different conversations: We do not need "a rule" to come to a sensible decision. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:EDITING exist and are sufficient. See also WP:NOT and WP:WIKILAWYER. If we had to have a rule in place before we did anything that consensus decided made sense, then this entire project would have collapsed shortly after it started. Next, whether something it noteworthy enough (is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE) to be mentioned briefly somewhere in an article has nothing to do with whether it should be mentioned in the lead. Leads are necessarily confined to summarizing the key contents of an article with WP:DUE weight given, and mentioning non-notable adaptations of a work, like mentioning non-notable covers of a song, or non-notable actors who have played Romeo, is obviously grossly undue. Absolutely no special rule that says this and only this will ever need to be written, because it is obvious.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM to mention a 6.6 rated IMDb film in the lead when a mention of it in Hallowe'en_Party works just fine. I'd be okay with adding The novel has been adapted for television, radio, and film. to the lead but again, name dropping that film in the lead is UNDUE/RECENTISM. Some1 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No – While A Haunting in Venice is the most notable adaption, that doesn't make it one of the most important points about the novel. I find the suggestion that the lead should be summarizing each section of an article questionable. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If something is important enough in the article structure to have it's own section is pretty much by definition important enough to summarize in the lead, in WP:DUE weight with the other material in the article, otherwise the lead is failing to summarize the article. When summarizing a section on adaptations, and only one of them is notable, the obvious thing to do is mention the notable one (by name) in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Adaptations have had their own section in the article for fifteen years, but only in recent months has there been a "need" for adaptations to be mentioned to the lead? I find your argument pretty much unconvincing. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have failed for 15 years. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Until recently, none of the novel's adaptations have been notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but also mention other adaptations. It is not necessary to mention them all by name. A sentence like this would suffice: "The book has been adapted for radio, television, and a film." Note the wikilink to the film, which is a normal practice in leads. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 07:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a perfectly fine approach to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a test version. Feel free to improve the wording or move it to a better location. It's easier to make a decision when one sees how it works. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. But the section link shouldn't be there per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 22. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think by general precedent there wouldn't be a mention in the lead. The issue is of little importance yet some people feel rather strongly on the matter so I suggest the mention is made and then removed in a year's time when we have calmed down and the film has been forgotten. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By "general precedent", there would. If you go to any work that has been adapted, chances are you will see the adaptations mentioned in the lead. And no, it will not be . InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have gone through most of the films in Category:Films based on Hercule Poirot books (until I got fed up!) and, somewhat to my surprise, none of the articles about the corresponding books has any mention of any adaptions in the leads – with the exception of Hallowe'en Party. Have you been able to find any? Thincat (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The Poirot novels seem to be the outliers. I just took a look at many randomly selected articles, and pretty much all of them mentioned their most notable adaptation(s) in the lead, including GAs and FAs: Casino Royale (novel), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Black Panther (character), Super Mario Bros., Romeo and Juliet, Ready Player One, Barbie, The Phantom of the Opera (novel), Dune (novel), Pinocchio, Watchmen, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Valjean's proposed text, or something similar. Cremastra (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording
I haven't read the book, so I'm hoping that someone who knows the story can improve this.


 * "the mystery novelist Ariadne Oliver, who begins the novel in attendance at a Hallowe'en party."

Does this mean she was at the party when the novel begins, or does it mean she starts writing a novel of her own while at the party? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At the start of the novel Mrs Oliver is visiting the house to help in preparing for the party (which she then attends). I don't think she begins writing any novel in the course of the story. Thincat (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)