Talk:To Have and to Hold (Johnston novel)

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.
	This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

On 27 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from To Have and to Hold to To Have and to Hold (Johnston novel). The result of the discussion was moved.

"...According to the New York Times.."[edit]

The article says:

To Have and to Hold is a 1900 novel by American author, Mary Johnston. Published by Houghton Mifflin, according to the New York Times it was the bestselling novel in the United States that year.

But according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_1900s

The book was featured in that list, and it says that list is "as determined by Publishers Weekly". Indianparttime2 (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlinks[edit]

The citations listed for the apparent 2011 movie adaptations both lead to 404's (deadlinks). Might want to get a better source? WikiJoeBee (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– There are a lot of different subjects known as "To Have and to Hold", as noted at To Have and to Hold (disambiguation). The phrase, of course, is an excerpt of common marriage vows (and is mentioned in that article). Most of those subjects are not based on this book. The book has long-term significance and gets about 25 page views per days, but that does not seem like enough to be considered a proper primary topic. The hot one right now is the new Philippine TV series with more than 500 views per day, and the short-lived 1998 American TV series has been getting about 20. (Please note that I just renamed two of these articles, so the pageview counts are now at different places, and I also started an RfD for the To have and to hold redirect.) There are also five films, a television movie, a television mini-series, three television episodes, two other novels, another book, two songs, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Among the 20 entries at the To Have and to Hold (disambiguation) page, the 121-year-old novel, with its "gaol", is certainly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if most of the uses derive from the novel the term is quite generic and the Philippine TV series doesn't seem to indicate this anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Ralph free or remaining in gaol, and is he captured while he is in the gaol?[edit]

The article says the Governor sets Ralph free, so Ralph then goes to Virginia although he is forced to "remain in a gaol" but then is lured into a trap and captured. That doesn't seem to completely make sense. How can he remain in a gaol if he wasn't put into the gaol in the first place? Is he still in the gaol when he is lured into the trap and captured? It might also be best to avoid the archaic word "gaol", even if the novel uses it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]