Talk:Turtles All the Way Down (novel)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 25 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ccorb020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Name and dab discussion
User:AlexAurorus, User:NowIOnlyWantATriumph: Looks like we have Turtles All the Way Down (novel) and Turtles All the Way Down both going at the same time. One should probably be redirected to the other and you guys can work on it together. This one should probably be redirected to the one without (novel), since there doesn't seem to be a need to specify the disambiguation. Timothy Joseph Wood 18:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering that the link you referred to links instead to an episode of the TV show Alive, I think the disambiguation would be helpful to confuse from the episode and song with the same name. NowIOnlyWantATriumph (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Sorry, it looks like a capitalization issue. I mean't to point to Turtles All The Way Down. But now that I look at it, I'm not sure if the "the" should be caps or not. MOS:CAPS doesn't seem to really address the issue that I can see. I can't really think of another book title to compare it to off the top of my head. The source used in this article doesn't capitalize the "the", but the book cover is in all caps. So... crap. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * BTW User:Largoplazo, this seems to be a bit more complicated that a simple A10 can handle, so I've removed the speedy which no longer really applies. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sorry, maybe I clicked the same link twice. In any event, I certainly wasn't expecting two authors to come up with articles on two different topics having the same name at almost the same time! Largoplazo (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Heh. It happens way more often than you think. Every time there's a new terrorist attack a half dozen articles get created and people argue about the "real name" for the next 100 years.


 * But... my problem here, is that since there is the article on the episode, Turtles All the Way Down, the article Turtles All The Way Down can't even cleanly redirect to neither here nor there. It really should be a disambig, but we don't make disambigs out of incorrect spellings. To make matters worse, the other article (now clearly the less developed of the two), actually came first, so I don't think we can even A10 the thing. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I fixed it, other than the fact that I made a huge mess in doing so. A dab is probably technically the correct answer, but there are 80 or so incoming links to the original page. I think most of those were coming from a template, but I'm just going to have to figure out how many came from the template and how many came from actual WLs. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The current situation is that Turtles All the Way Down (disambiguation) redirects to Turtles All the Way Down, which is a disambiguation page. I've fixed anything that still linked to either of those pages (except for a whole bunch of archived stuff outside of the main namespace). We might want to switch around those two pages (so that the "(disambiguation)" page actually is the dab, and Turtles All the Way Down redirects to the dab), but that should probably be discussed on the dab talk page. Rchard2scout (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Rchard2scout: Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought the non-(dab) was normally supposed to be the actual page, and the (dab) was only supposed to redirect there for any cases where it was an intentional WL to a dab, so that bots can tell it was intentional. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * TimothyJosephWood: That kinda makes sense. I don't actually know what the common practice is, I'm hardly ever involved in move/redirect/dab processes. I don't care one way or another, so do what you think is best :) Rchard2scout (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (it is an article for a newly created novel, and therefore would have no previous page history.) --2602:306:83AB:530:9006:160E:48A:CF8A (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... This page is better formatted and more detailed than the other one --67.244.26.107 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it is an increasingly detailed page about newly announced subject matter. --AlexAurorus (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How does this article differ from marketing?
The apparent conflict I see here is not mine personally, but rather a concern that this is a potential abuse of Wikipedia. The article is about a commercial product that has not yet been published. How does it differ from a marketing effort? The "Critical response" section is all about marketing activity (press releases in the media), not criticism. Can we be sure that the article creator did not have a commercial interest? How do we prevent Wikipedia from being used for commercial purposes by clever marketers? I have nothing against the author or his publisher, but let's be careful not to let Wikipedia turn into a marketing platform! Ontyx (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it has been published now. In regards to your concern, the announcement of the book has generated some coverage within secondary sources (cited within the article), so I don't believe that creating the article was completely unwarranted. However, the tone within the Critical response section does seem insufficiently detached. Would you want to propose a reworded version? Just my opinion on the matter.  Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ - please resubmit with a more specific request per 's advice.   Dr Strauss   talk   14:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Who is Noah
In the plot synopsis, a character with the name of Noah is referenced at the end, but there is no explanation on who that person is. Not having read the book, I assume that he might be David's younger brother, but I can't be sure. I suggest either to remove him completely from the plot section, or at least indicate who he is earlier on. Wolffh76 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Is "Development Hell" Encyclopedic language?
The first paragraph of this article ends with " In December 2017, Green announced that a film adaptation was in development, with filming beginning in April 2022 after years in development hell."

Is "development hell" proper, unbiased, language to use on Wikipedia? It seems a little... informal to me. Gøøse060 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Came here to say this. Though "development hell" is a noteworthy slang term in production of TV and Film, it doesnt belong here. It's also a complete matter of opinion. 7 years from the options being purchased hardly qualifies. 216.121.177.33 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)