Talk:Jim Button and Luke the Engine Driver

Merger proposal

Should Jim Button and the Wild 13 be merged into this article? I saw that in the German version of Wikipedia, it is done this way and there's only one page for the Jim Button books as much of the information (except for plot summary) would be redundant. - tameeria 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I also favour merging both articles, it makes sense. How about renaming to Jim Button (books) and link both original book titles to the new article? - Einemnet 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. There are only these two books, no others are forthcoming. The 2nd book is clearly a sequel. The scope doesn't merit two articles. Peterbruells 12:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. The two books are really one story and as pointed out earlier, there will be no additional books. Marrante (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus: merge. Until my post yesterday, all discussion on this, both here and at the other article, took place in 2007. There was only one opposed to the merger (at the other article). All others were in favor of the merger, so I am going to go ahead with it. Marrante (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Button and Luke the Engine Driver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611214653/http://www.tvsi.de/zeichentrickserien/jim_Knopf.php to http://www.tvsi.de/zeichentrickserien/jim_Knopf.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Voss Interpretation

The whole literary references section is filled with Vosses interpretation instead of actual references. If anything it should go into an interpretation section and be trimmed down and reframed to reduce the suggestion that this is "pure truth" rather than a theory or post interpretation.

In fact, whole paragraphs are basically sourced to this single interpretation. The style in which this is written is also not reflecting the fact that it's speculative theory (esp. given the contrast that Ende was not a fan of subtile messages in books).

For example:

"That Ende's book was full of Nazi symbols and imagery turned on their head, and that its English references stemmed from his interest in Darwin was unknown until late 2008, when Julia Voss, a German journalist, published an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung revealing the story's background."

This is highly suggestive and paints it as a revelation rather than a therory of a single author. 2A01:598:D00A:C0E3:6022:FC23:573:CE0A (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the whole section OR, if it is just based on a few original-research articles by one author? I agree that it should be rewritten at least. (In the German version of this article, the Voss interpretations were distilled into one single 100-words paragraph titled "Interpretationen".) 2A0A:A541:7301:0:D17F:33F9:9DDC:9DE9 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It largely is "a few articles by a single author", but a German adult reader cannot but jump to similar conclusions when he reads things like "Lokomotiven haben bekanntlich keinen großen Verstand, deswegen brauchen sie auch immer einen Führer" and "Der Eintritt ist nicht reinrassigen Drachen bei Todesstrafe verboten".--138.245.1.1 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this about the German book or about its English translations?

Only one English translation is mentioned in one footnote, so it appears that this is about the German original version. Then the German character names, and the German title, should be used, right? (I came here to find out how "Scheinriese" was translated into English, and could not determine this clearly from the article.) 2A0A:A541:7301:0:D17F:33F9:9DDC:9DE9 (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, with some logic the description of a German book fondly remembered by former German children will have a large percentage of those, now being adults, among those who want to talk about it. And while their English may be good, that doesn't make them possess an official English translation. --138.245.1.1 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)