This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
Both the part called History of Origin and Publication and the part called Interpretation were translated from the German wikipedia page on the neverending story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superpanda55 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has put a great deal of effort into the "Interpretation" section. For this, I salute you! But there's a problem. This section contains numerous statements which conflict with Wikipedia policies (explained here) regarding verifiability and citations. For example, see the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs. These statements are someone's interpretation of the novel, but whose? There are no citations to support them. If they are interpretations that have been published somewhere, citations should be added. If these are a Wikipedia editor's interpretations, such statements (no matter how well-reasoned) should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for original work, archival findings that have not been published, or evidence from any source that has not been published, as stated in the link above. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was translated from the German Wikipedia, which does seem to cite sources.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' translations cannot be used. They certainly cannot be turned into a wall of text without citations. There's already a reception section where some of this could have been worked in, judiciously, not dumped wholesale as it is. OP is correct. If no one is going to rewrite it according to style and with proper citations, it cannot remain. The History and Origin (?) section likewise has no sections and is by the same editor, quoting out of thin air. The Editions section too. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to correct a statement in the "Editions" section and ended up substantially revising the page, including a near-complete rewrite of the summary. The previous summary struck me as focusing heavily on the first third of the novel, on which the 1983 film is based (a film that Ende detested), and thus glossing over the vast majority of the book. Mozby (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He ist not strange, he is a quiet kid, who loves to read and is bullied by other kids. KhlavKhalash (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you have seen the correction I've done to that then. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Main problem now is that this must be condensed and less poetic. Maxcardun (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
