User talk:Detvanesther
Hello,
I have reverted the changes you made to these articles. The miniseries is listed as being based on both novels in its opening credits,[1] by the Writers Guild of America,[2], and by reliable sources such as the Variety review cited in the novel's article.[3] What the miniseries takes, or doesn't take, from the second novel is irrelevant without citing reliable sources. You need to find and cite reliable sources stating otherwise before changing or removing this information. DoubleCross (‡) 21:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Have you ever actually watched the series itself? It must be clearly stated that even tho the book is credited, the series doesn’t follow the second novel at all. This wil only confuse people who are not familiar with the mini series. Detvanesther (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did watch it, years ago. It sucked. But that's something else that's irrelevant. Wikipedia follows verifiability, not "the truth". Everything listed in it has to be supported by reliable sources. Your assertion about what "must clearly be stated" is original research, unless there's a reliable source(s) that says that. It shouldn't be hard to find them and cite them. DoubleCross (‡) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- No I think it must be informed to readers that despite being credited, no episodes related to the second novel is being made. This is not what you can define as “original research”and you are aware of the series. Atleast inform people that it doesn’t follow the second novel. Its otherwise very misleading and I don’t think that is what wikipedia is about. Detvanesther (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Especially at the page of the son of rosemary novel i would call that vert misleading Detvanesther (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's just it though - what you or I "think" should be listed doesn't matter. See my previous reply. DoubleCross (‡) 14:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I won’t read something twice because your reasoning doesn’t make sense. Ur litarly making misleading facts based on wrong sources but pop off. Detvanesther (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt you even read it once. DoubleCross (‡) 15:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure jan Detvanesther (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are very intelligent. You heard it here first.
- Also, Rosemary's Baby is a 2014 two-part, four-hour television miniseries adaptation of Ira Levin's best-selling 1967 horror novel of the same name and its 1997 sequel Son of Rosemary. DoubleCross (‡) 15:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you wanna believe everything that the media tells u, knock yourself bunny Detvanesther (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure jan Detvanesther (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt you even read it once. DoubleCross (‡) 15:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I won’t read something twice because your reasoning doesn’t make sense. Ur litarly making misleading facts based on wrong sources but pop off. Detvanesther (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's just it though - what you or I "think" should be listed doesn't matter. See my previous reply. DoubleCross (‡) 14:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did watch it, years ago. It sucked. But that's something else that's irrelevant. Wikipedia follows verifiability, not "the truth". Everything listed in it has to be supported by reliable sources. Your assertion about what "must clearly be stated" is original research, unless there's a reliable source(s) that says that. It shouldn't be hard to find them and cite them. DoubleCross (‡) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)