Talk:The Goldfinch (novel)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Goldfinch (novel) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nom (no support) GreenC 20:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Goldfinch (novel) → The Goldfinch – Currently The Goldfinch points to the disambiguation page. However the novel is clearly the primary topic for "The Goldfinch". Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is evidenced by What links here counts (novel vs. painting), and Google search counts. The page view counts (novel vs. painting) are incorrect since the painting article was just created yesterday and it seems to have overlapped with stats from the novel article. Also, there are only two articles with this name, a dab page is not needed, a top-hat note on this page for The Goldfinch (painting) would be sufficient. GreenC 16:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree that the new `"The" dab page should be merged to Goldfinch, we don't normally have separate "The" dab pages unless there's an unmanageable number of "The" subjects. As for what links here, templates should be taken out of that equation since template entries should always be at maximal clarity. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've merged the disambiguation pages together, as the existence of a separate disambiguation page, or as part of another should not have a bearing on this discussion. Rather it is just the difference between whether to have a disambiguation page or an article as the primary. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The page view counts are probably correct, because there was a red link for The Goldfinch (painting) in one or more articles. The difference in links to the article, apart from the fact that the painting article was just created, is that the novel article is linked in {{PulitzerPrize Fiction 2001–2025}} which is included in about 25 articles. Now that there is only one disambiguation page, I see no reason to change the article title at this time. – Editør (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Pulitzer Prize is what makes the novel a primary topic (IMO). That and there are only two articles named "The Goldfinch" it doesn't make sense to dab them, rather have one primary. It's a waste of good namespace, otherwise, to have "The Goldfinch" point to a dab with only two entries (for "The Goldfinch"). The point is to figure out which article most readers are trying to get too when they type in "The Goldfinch". The painting article is getting a lot of hits right now probably due to work being done on it, but still 2 to 3 times less than the novel. Strangely both articles are getting orders of magnitude more hits since the renames. -- GreenC 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

negative reviews

I think negative reviews should be mentioned too, especially those coming from important critics.86.121.194.171 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review section was a monument to WP:WEIGHT violation. It was 90% fawning POV language and reviews and a few mentions at the end of the negative reviews. In fact, the positive reviews are mostly inconsequential (trade magazines, notorious NYT reviewer Michiko Kakutani and Stephen King) which are overshadowed by the serious literary book review periodicals which panned it. I've tried to restore some weight but it's still slightly balanced towards the positive reviews. -- GreenC 16:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also put in the BuzzFeed "review"? Take it out because no one takes BuzzFeed seriously. 80.57.2.97 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads not an appropriate External Link

I doubt this is controversial, but just in case, I edited out a link to Goodreads.com, which was the only external link (diff). Support for not adding Goodreads under External Links:

WP:EL - Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.
Discussion re: the (now defunct) Goodreads template
Is Goodreads an appropriate EL? - Discussion on the External Links Noticeboard.

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 03:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzFeed review

Are we seriously using Buzzfeed "reviews" now? 80.57.2.97 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]