Template talk:Stephen King

I think I'll add the collection of essays by king published as Secret Windows in the nonfiction section. 66.41.117.220 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding Stephen King Goes to the Movies to this template, especially to the non-fiction section. It is not a book of non-fiction. It is a collection of previously collected short fiction, with very short new intros by King for each. That is all. This book should not be listed under this template at all, because it's not an original work. "The Mist" was also recently released as a stand-alone paperback; doesn't mean it should be added to the template. Jmj713 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion - which you are entitled too! - However this is a navigation template relating to works by Stephen King. It links all appropriate articles on wikipedia, that is what they do. I take on trust what you say about the collection and have moved it to the "Short story collection" list. Also something you have not done which is to revise the article itself. If it is your opinion that the article shouldn't be here. It might be that it shouldn't be on wikipedia at all. That is a different matter and the article itself should be challenged. I will leave that for you to do separately and will not block any such challenge myself. If it goes then it can go from the navigation template. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not just an opinion, but fact. The navigation template also omits other Stephen King works which are minor and are not part of his canonical bibliography, such as Six Stories and The Secretary of Dreams. Please leave this book off the template, unless there is consensus otherwise. Jmj713 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I really don't understand - is this meant to be a complete bibliographical navigation template like the others or is it not; in which case it is "incomplete". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, really. There are those works which are original, canonical. Then there are various reprints and reissues, which this book is. Such books offer nothing, or nearly nothing, new. A bibliographical navigation template in my understanding should only contain these "official" works. If we were to include every book with Stephen King's name on it, the template would be enormous. Jmj713 (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However these are navigation templates which offer a "navigation" round the articles within the subject of the template to be found on wikipedia. They are not formal bibliographies (that is elsewhere!) or formal "canonical" lists. They are just that "navigation round wikipedia". Such articles exist on wikipedia so they should be on the template. The question should be rather, if they have no real value as new collections, then they have no real value as "notable collections", then they have no real value as articles on wikipedia (

Is there a reason the the theatrical adaptation of The Mist is not included in the "Film adaptations" part of this template? If no one objects, I'm going to add it in. Moviemaniacx (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think there are so many adaptations from King's works that I think that whole section should be removed from this template. Jmj713 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no reply to this proposal, I went ahead and removed the film adaptations sections. It's unrelated to actual works by Stephen King (his filmed screenplays are listed in another section), and as a list of adaptations of King's works it's woefully incomplete (a complete list would be too big for this template anyway).Jmj713 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it is relevant to King, the template isn't "works by Steven King." The major motion pictures and significant television works should be included, or at least a link to a list page as a gateway for readers who may want to know which of his stories have been adapted. --TimPendragon (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is actually called "Stephen King bibliography". Perhaps another template can be created specifically for filmed adaptations. Jmj713 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a back and forth type thing for a while now. We need consensus. Please add your remove or keep votes here and your reasoning.

• Delete It's a very large template as it is, and adding things that the author didn't directly have anything to do with is needless. Moreover, the list as is is incomplete anyway. There is also a link to films based on King's works at the bottom of the template as well. Jmj713 (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I've edited back in the films many times; I'm the one whose adding it back in. I respectfully offer my dearest apologies, but, answer this for me... why is it not possible for this template to include film adaptations while so many others do (ex. Michael Crichton, Roald Dahl, Tom Wolfe)? People keep saying "He didn't write the films". Tom Wolfe didn't write any, Roald Dahl only wrote one, and Michael only wrote one. It doesn't make logical sense to me that the films shouldn't be added because he didn't have a hand in them. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 9:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The title of the template is works of Stephen King, not the works of Stanley Kubrick or Rob Reiner, however great those works may be. Stephen King had nothing to do with these works other than being the source material. Would you suggest that O Brother, Where Art Thou? be included in a template about Homer or Greek mythology? Of course not, because it is just the Coen Brothers' retelling of it in their own distinct way, just as Carrie is Brian DePalma's retelling of King's novel in his own distinct way. Also, the films are on the template. It links to the list of film adaptations and that is all you need.BillyJack193 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I respect your opinions, and I well know that there is a list for film adaptations, but answer this for me - why are film adaptations acceptable in so many other author works templates (Michael Crichton, Tom Wolfe, Roald Dahl, Dr. Seuss)? I mean, Crichton and Suess have reasonably 'large' templates, yet having a film adaptations section is not a problem. As well, Dr. Suess had no hand in the films but source material (obviously), Tom Wolfe didn't have any, Michael only wrote a few I think, and Dahl only wrote one. I well know that this is a very large template, and that adding fllms would make this ridiculously oversized, but to say that we shouldn't include films because he didn't have a hand in any of them - other than one or a few writing credits - when there are so many others that didn't as well, seems very odd to me. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 7:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I agree with Cartoon Boy. Why is it that film adaptations can be tolerated in other author templates (see Cartoon Boy's expamples)? Also, I've seen this type of thing before in Template:Steven Spielberg; the template says "Steven Spielberg filmography" , and lists the entire filmography, while there is still a link to the filmography in the template. -- 68.76.157.172 1:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The difference is this: Steven Spielberg is a filmmaker. One would expect his films to be included. However, if someone were to write a book about him it would not be included. That is the issue. These film adaptations are not the works of Stephen King. They are the work of their respective directors. The only films that need to be on this template are the ones King wrote the screenplays for. Furthermore, there are hundreds of film adaptations of King and there is simply not room. Look at the templates for William Shakespeare or Charles Dickens. Do you see film adaptations? No. Who cares if the people responsible for the Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss templates got it wrong? Does that mean that we should also? BillyJack193 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I added a new category called musical collaborations to the template and within it I put Black Ribbons. This change was reverted by User: Jmj713 who also deleted the category stage plays featuring Ghost Brothers of Darkland County. He moved both to the Related Articles category. I can certainly understand his reasoning and I agree the the template is already too large. However, I think related articles should be saved for articles about King himself, fictional places he has invented, and works like The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer: My Life at Rose Red which he did not directly contribute too. However, these two works were directly contributed to by King himself.

Looking at the article, it seems that Ghost Brothers of Darkland County will be released first as a disc with King's dialouge and Mellencamp's songs before it is staged and that the disc will not be a cast recording. So why don't we do this: instead of having two categories called "Stage Plays" and "Musical Collaborations", we have just one featuring both Black Ribbons and Ghost Brothers. Discuss please. BillyJack193 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that for now I guess. I just don't think these are pure Stephen King works, certainly not the Black Ribbons album, which he simply narrates, I don't think it's text he wrote himself. Jmj713 (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect King will make some kind of announcement on his web site about the extent of his involvement within the week, but we do have Shooter Jennings being quoted as saying that King wrote parts of the dialouge himself. We will probably know more about it as the release date nears.BillyJack193 (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should a section for the seperate short stories be added? I was going to add it, but I think it is best if I bring it up here first. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 1:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the article links to the article on short fiction by King and we're assuming that most of them, the more recent ones at least, will be collected at some point. BillyJack193 (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It deals with more than just the works of Stephen King, and thus ought to be augmented to a more generic title, such as "Stephen King". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forteana (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we discuss adding two new sections to the template for the Danny Torrance series (The Shining and Dr. Sleep) and another for the Jack Sawyer series (The Talisman and Black House). Would adding this sections be within Wikipedia guidelines and is there any reason not to do so? These books comprise part of an ongoing series and are thus ill-fitted for the section dealing with stand-alone novels. BillyJack193 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please look into what's going on with the template on pages like

Don't know why but I moved the template after the categories and it looks better.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is better, thank you.

Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously the eight novels in the Dark Tower series are listed as a separate group, but are there any Wikipedia guidelines stating when others should be listed that way as well? For example, I believe it would be too much to list The Shining and Doctor Sleep series separately, especially since we are unlikely to ever see another book in the series. But what of the ongoing Bill Hodges series, the third book of which was recently announced? Or the series comprising The Talisman and Black House? Both King and Peter Straub have mentioned within the past year that they are working on a third volume, so it's likely that we'll see it at some point. I'm not suggesting giving either of these series their own group as of right now, but at what point should it be done or should it be done at all? BillyJack193 (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really necessary, especially for two or three books. Jmj713 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on adding the Bill Hodges series now it now that it's grown to now include a spin-off (The Outsider) and a short story as well (If It Bleeds)? Or should it be more along the lines of say a group of books that has a separate page of their own? Cmahns (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Hearts in Suspension back to the non-fiction section and kept Charlie the Choo-Choo in related articles for now.

It's true that Hearts in Suspension isn't entirely a King work, but his name is in large print on the cover, as is a photo of him. It includes five previously uncollected non-fiction pieces by King and a novella that comes to 198 pages in my paperback edition of Hearts in Atlantis. According to the publisher the book will be 373 pages long. So I think it's fair to predict that King is the primary contributor to the book, although I'm fine with adding "(with others)" or something along those lines. It's certainly as much a King book as "Guns", in my opinion.

As for Charlie the Choo-Choo, I'm fine with keeping it in related articles for now and I agree that it isn't a novel. But it was definitely written by King and I'm not sure where it best fits. It ties into The Dark Tower, but I don't think it belongs in that section. Perhaps it can be combined with the Bachman novels and we can rename the section "pseudonymous works" or something? BillyJack193 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "Suspension" is categorization. Its bulk is a reprint of a fictional work, so in of itself it wouldn't be notable enough for the template. It does feature some minor non-fiction works, as well as numerous contributions by others, so I feel like Related is the best place for it. Jmj713 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Keep it in related for now and I guess we'll see going forward how it's ultimately categorized by professional reviewers and by King. I predict that we may see the new essay in a future short story collection or in future printings of Hearts in Atlantis, which would make the four newspaper columns he wrote in college the only unique features of the book as far as his works are concerned. BillyJack193 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some fan added just about every comic connected to King to the list. These comics were NOT written by King, but adapted after his works:

• The Secretary of Dreams (2006)
• The Dark Tower (2007–)
• The Stand (2008–12)
• The Talisman (2009–10)
• N. (2010)
• Road Rage (2012)
• The Dark Man (2013)

They belong to the adaptations-list. So far the list of Kings works only contains works written completely or partially by himself, not written by others after King. If no one complains, I will delete them in some days. 178.24.154.192 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Dark Man isn't an adaptation, it's an illustrated version of the unabridged text. The article is about the poem.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Would like to see the 'Novels' section to include 'Elevation (2018), as announced in recent days.

Information here:

https://www.bustle.com/p/stephen-king-has-two-new-books-coming-out-this-year-so-mark-your-calendars-8174964 Robbmonster (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Added Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia, Robbmonster! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

allixpeeke (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The novel The Institute was added to the template. There is no article on this novel, nor is it discussed on King's bio page. Per

]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• The Mist (1980) Krstakg (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]