Talk:Bella Swan

Birth and Death dates

I don't know if the current dates are correct. bella becomes a vampire at age 18. plus, the death date, while im not sure if it matches up with the death date going from the original publishing of twilight, does not match up with breaking dawn's release. Somebody please fix these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.28.83 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The dates should not match up with the present year, since Twilight begins in January 2005 (the year the book was released) and the series does not catch up to present day. By the end of the series, not much time has passed– in Breaking Dawn, Bella is changed into a vampire less than 2 years after Twilight began (in September 2006, just before she would have turned 19). This means that even though Breaking Dawn was released in 2008, in the Twilight-universe it was still only 2006. Hope that clears things up. Andrea (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does the new pic come from?

Love the pic! Where does it come from? ~ The Rebel's Gone Pokeynuts LOL 12:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Is the pic gone? I can't see it anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.141.244 (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC) :The picture was deleted because it apparently was copyrighted and couldn't be used, but I think it was just uploaded in Commons, which was wrong, and deleted from there, but can be uploaded under fair use on Wikipedia. I'll find out, and replace the image if possible. Oh, and btw, the picture came from the new calander that Borders is selling. ~ Bella Swan^? 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)::Fixed it, it's back in the article. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Bella is a cool vampire

Character Analysis

I think there should be a character analysis for Bella, describing her personality and such. Anyone want to do it? What kind of things should we say in the analysis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.18.232 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

really good idea. i would do it but i've only read twilight and i don't really know alot about bella. Princess Rebel (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made the character analysis (the Personality and Traits section). Feel free to edit it, I'm not really an experienced Twilighter yet. Princess Rebel (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bella or Isabella?

While personally I think it should list her real name, and can use her nickname for the rest of the article, I'd like to hear other opinions. Most fictional character articles list the REAL NAME of the character, not their nickname, as the name of the article. Just wanting to hear other opinions. Disinclination 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can have my opinion: You're doing perfectly fine. Considering that the books only mention her real name once in a while, I think it would be perfectly fine to use use 'Bella' throughout the article. Bella 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bella needs to show more emotions in life experience, what I have read (2 books & Twilight) she needs to show some type of emotions. All she is just someone not being shocked, amazed, or show that she loves Edward. More emotions, please. Emotions 07:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.178.144 (talk)

Edit Suggestions

This part of the article, where it mentions Bella's birthday part at the Cullens', makes it sound like there was more than one vampire besides Jasper that came after Bella when she received the paper cut. I don't have any suggestions on how to fix this, so that's why I'm asking now if anyone has an idea on how to fix it.

Also, in this part of the article, where it mentions her hair color as dark brown, I remember somewhere in the book mentioning that Bella has mahogany hair, based on Mike Newton's observance of her hair having a slight tint of red in the light. It could have been just a fancy, descriptive word that Bella or Edward uses, but I think it should be changed. Spottedstar 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just rereading Breaking Dawn and Jacob said something about "Their heads where close together, gold and mahogany" describing Rosalie and Bella, but I dunno. Most of the time it says she has dark brwon hair. AlicexCullen (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I REALLY think there is too much information put in this article. I had just finished reading the first book (twilight) and I went to wikipedia and reasearched "Bella Swan". It tells me too much I did not want to know every single thing that happened in each book. I think some information should be left secret, and taken out of the "Bella Swan" and "Edward Cullen" articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.115.218 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Eclipse

Someone put that Bella becomes a vampire at the end of Eclipse. Bella did not become a vampire by the end of Eclipse. could someone please fix that? Yukisora 01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to add more to the eclipse section. Its a bit...lacking. i can work on it when I'm finished with the book in about...two days. I've got to read it, first. Sophiakorichi 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Sophiakorichi

I agree. I would help with that, but unfortunately, I suck at making summaries. So if someone would type up the basic summary layout for the book, I'd be happy to oblige with adding a few other things as well. Spottedstar 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it!

...When I've read the darned book. I can't wait, it sounds really good! Princess Rebel (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read it. I'm going to see what I can do about the Eclipse section. Princess Rebel (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I tried, but I didn't do much. I've only read it, not studied the book. I need to know the in depth story before I can extend the section. Princess Rebel (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, if you look at the dates on these comments you will see that they are very old. The section does not need to be expanded anymore. Andrea (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

true, the comments are old, but really, it does need improving. in my opinion, that is. Princess Rebel (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In-verse tag

I just tagged the article with a fictional-universe tag. It's not a major problem, just needs a little tweaking to make it an encyclopedic article without merely repeating the plotline of the books as though explaining the life-and-times of the character as though she were a real person. Any information on influences for character development, external reviews, that sort of thing would be great. Annie D (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody also seemed to add a 'too-long' tag. I was wondering what specifically someone thought was too long, just so I can get a heads-up of what to fix. ~ Bella Swan 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the too-long tag.

I think the summaries of each book are far too long, and are more suitable to be on the pages for the books themselves. While the details may be important to describing the character of Bella, I think it could be summarized in a much more brief way.

Some of the details aren't very relevant to Bella, and it's just a bit too in-depth for a wiki article that isn't even about the books.

If you haven't read the books, it is nice to read to feel more acquainted with them, but the in-depthness of it just isn't appropriate for this particular article. CherryFlavoredAntacid (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I mean, this is an in-depth look into the books, characters and movie, not something that said "lalala, this is a brilliant book but you'll have to read it because this article will not tell you anything!" Princess Rebel (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Images?

The parts have been chosen for the Twilight movie, but the actors themselves aren't "portraying" anything in their pictures, are they? I think they will look...different in the movie. Putting the images of the actors/actresses up now would be like putting an image of Johnny Depp on the Jack Sparrow page. If no one opposes this, I'll take down the images in a week or so. --Angel Alice♠(talk) 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this for Bella's page, since it's a picture of Kristen Stewart that is unrelated to Twilight. But the pictures on the Cullens' pages are promotional photos of them as the characters, so technically it is them "portraying" the characters, in a way. I would vote for leaving those ones for now, until something better comes along. Andrea (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

is that pic really not related to twilight? i thought it was. the background looks like the background used for the promo shots of the cullen family Princess Rebel (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The current image is related to Twilight, yes. This discussion was about an older image that was in place before. Andrea (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry about that. I'm a very young, ignorant Twilighter at the moment. Quite new to the series. Princess Rebel (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is this pic from, anyways? Can someone get the full picture for me? Because I can see a little bit of Edward in it. Princess Rebel (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And Alice, I might add Princess Rebel (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Could we add more pictures to the articles about Twilight? There are stacks of pics on the offcial movie website and Stephenie Meyer's website.

Click here to get to Stephenie Meyer's website (the movie page)

Click here to get to the official movie website. Princess Rebel (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacob's Introduction

In Jacob's paragraph it mentions nothing about his and Bella's first meet and I thik that is significantly important seeing as that's how she was introduced to the idea of real werewolfs and vampires. I'm not sure how to change it so I just wanted to know if one of you Twilight fans would. --99.226.156.142 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.156.142 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacob's first meeting with Bella is mentioned in the Twilight section of the article. Jacob's section is about his romantic relationship with Bella, and thus their discussion about vampires and werewolves doesn't really apply there. Andrea (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Article title

I've moved this article from Isabella Cullen to Bella Swan, per WP:Common names. Bella is rarely ever called Isabella, and her surname is only Cullen in Breaking Dawn; for most of the series, she is known as Bella Swan. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But from about chapter 3 of Breaking Dawn, she's Bella Cullen, having married Edward... maybe that needs to go in somewhere... Fairweather01 (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacob described as such an amazing person in twilight. Bella describes him with dark hair and skin color so rich, if she did not fall in love with Edward, she would have fallen in love with Jacob. Bella during the middle of the book is having second guesses when Edward leaves. Bella would have fallen deeply in love with Jacob if Alice had not come to see Bella. Anyway Jacob is trying throughout the whole series to win Bella over till the end when he sees that Edward and Bella are never going to be broken apart. Carlisle and Esme once said in breaking dawn part 1 "we are a family" and they always will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.142.133 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Twilight Task Force

This is a note saying that a Twilight Task Force might be in the works. A poll is currently being held here to see who would be willing to join. If you would like to join, please participate in this poll. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan^? 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Random thought...

What in heck does "excruciatingly beautiful" mean? Excruciatingly means painful, and I'm sure that everyone knows what beautiful is. So "painfully pretty" or "tortuously gorgeous" could be substituted? I doubt it. I guess that it just doesn't fit for me... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily mean painful--one defintion (according to dictionary.com) means "extremely". However, I do agree that it doesn't look right. I'll replace it with 'very'. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it? I've never heard that definition before...just goes to show that I should do research before saying that kind of stuff... =) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept the same as "excruciatingly beautiful" because that is how it is written in the book. Somewhere in the twilight book. Check it. It's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.115.218 (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bella's presence does cause Edward pain, at least in the first book, so if you're referring to Twilight, then there's your answer. However, if you're referring to any of the other books, e.g. New Moon, Eclipse, or Breaking Dawn, well then, Stephenie Meyer is probably just using words that she's already used, mayhap to tie in all of the books???? That's how I'd view it, at least... Spiritchik (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered what Bella's address in the book is???? Just seeing if I'm the only one... Spiritchik (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Maiden Name

ok, Bella's current name is Isabella "Bella" Marie Cullen. But the article says it is Isabella "Bella" Marie Swan, can i change Swan to Cullen?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.67.237 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ok, i changed it. can someone tell me what i did wring if i did anything wrong BEFORE changing it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.67.237 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll tell you. If you read this, you will see that on Wikipedia we name people based on their most common/most recognizable name. Since Bella is "Bella Swan" for the majority of the series, it doesn't matter that by the end her name is "Bella Cullen". Hope that helps; I am going to change it back now. Andrea (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the description at the top of the page, WP:COMMONNAME refers to article naming (and likely, section naming).

The pages for Princess Leia Organa, Donna Martin, Aishwarya Rai, Ashlee Simpson, Hulk Hogan, Bill Clinton, and several others contain both the article name and an alternate name within the introductory sentence. What policy states that there needs to be an exception here? --James26 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue seems to be over primarily calling her "Isabella Marie Cullen" or "Isabella Marie Swan". Per WP:COMMONNAME, Bella's most recognizable name is Bella Swan (her name for 3/4s of the series). As well, this section on maiden names agrees that, in all cases, women should be called by the name they are most widely known under (Elizabeth Taylor being the prime example). As for including an alternate name, this isn't necessarily a problem– but her primary name should be Swan. However, I would argue that since she is almost never called Bella Cullen in the books, and is never ever referred to as Bella Cullen outside of the books, the name shouldn't necessarily be included. The examples you listed don't necessarily fall under the same circumstances. The best comparison would be an article like Hermione Granger: a fictional, female character from a book, who gets married by the end of the series. "Hermione Granger" is the only name listed in the article, and the page has reached GA status (so I am more trusting of its format than I am of others). Andrea (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Last point sounds reasonable enough for me. Just think it should be acknowledged that WP:COMMONNAME makes reference to article naming and doesn't specifically apply to introductory sentences (unless I missed something). The Elizabeth Taylor article seems to set an example of this, as the introductory sentence differs from the article's title.

I also wanted to get conversation going to make sure this wasn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not a reader of this series so I don't have any personal investment, but I do know that the article should be treated the same as others. Perhaps this calls for a consensus. --James26 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vampire

Bella becomes avampire 2 days before her 19th birthday making her 18 forever. She becomes a vampire on the day Renesmee is born because if she had not she would be dead.aT first Bela belives that she will be like every vampire in there first year,Bloody and Instable. To her surprise she finds that she has a sort of super mind control after she and Edward go hunting and she avoids killing some hikers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordofthering45 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) and soon live happy ever after111111111

first of all shouldn't you add the part where she doesn't have supermind control because later on elezar tells her she is a shield. and if you read breaking dawn correctly you would know vampires only have up to one supernatural gift —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.67.132 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it isn't 2 days. It's 3 days before her birthday. Miss Sunshine 22:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, two. Carlisle said she was only out two days just after she woke up. :-) Fairweather01 (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

Currently, it has Bella as 'Isabella "Bella" Marie Swan'. This should be changed to 'Isabella "Bella" Marie Cullen (née Swan)'. She is currently not a Swan, she is a Cullen, and therefore, the name that begins her topic (not the page name) should be her actual name. If we start out with her formal first name, we should put her official last name too, not her maiden name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.122.189 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since she is more often known as Bella Swan, that's the primary name we should use (see the "Maiden Name" discussion 2 sections above). However, her married name can be included afterwards in parentheses as well. It was like that before, and I'm not sure when her married name was removed. I'll fix it now. Andrea (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't the name be Bella Swan (as a title, it the name that is used most) and have Bella Swan Cullen in the text? Why not vote on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilight 90210 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The opening sentence includes her married name in parenthesis—where else would it need to be written? The majority of the text should still use her most commonly recognized name. Andrea (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't they put names like Bella,Isabella,Bella Swan,or Bella Cullen? (Twilight578 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

I reckon it should be Isabella "Bella" Marie Cullen (née Swan), as above. Fairweather01 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The introduction should include just the name the character is best known for, simply her maiden name. Including Bella's married name in the introduction is in-universe, plus the article also has to cater to those unfamiliar with the series. Married names are also prohibited in Harry Potter articles (i.e., "Hermione Granger" instead of "Hermione Weasley [nee Granger]"), and the Twilight characters should be no exception.

In addition, frivolous information such as her nicknames, occupation and gender have also been removed from the infobox, as Wiki is not a fansite. Such fluff is more suitable for the Twilight Wikia. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In universe! You mean the character? The infobox tells how Stephenie Meyer created her and her married name is a fact. The term "fictional character" implies the article will be about a fictional character. The character infobox is not "in-universe" it contains details on the character in the story. "Twilight series character" will explain that. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that Meyer created the character and Bella's married name and whatnot. The issue here is that the article should not be written as if the subject were an actual person, as is the case with any fictional-character article. That includes details such as age, occupation, nicknames, and so on in the infobox, which are unencyclopedic. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is so, why are there these options for the infobox? Have you discussed this with the infoboxes talk page? Aren't infoboxes supposed to give the basic details of the subject? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 05:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Top Of Page

I was reading through it and the introductory paragraphs are a bit screwy. The paragraphs summarizing events in the series at the start only go as far as New Moon, while the Information section has the Information heading in the wrong place. I'll try and fix it - if I fail, it might need attantion from someone else. Fairweather01 (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the "Information" heading, it's not in the wrong place—that's where it is in the infobox template, and it cannot be moved on an individual page. Andrea (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception

So far, Bella is the only book character in Wikipedia who has a "reception" section. Do you think this is necessary?Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it contains third-party information and keeps the article from being completely in-universe. It could probably stand to be trimmed a bit, though. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It also says that she has received ONLY negative reviews by critics. Could we change that, please? The character has been received well with some critics and the page ought to show both to save accusations of bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.56.38 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: She has not been the only book character in Wikipedia with a reception section (see Blair Waldorf). Possibly the only one from this series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.84.133 (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the "sources". Thats nothing but opinions of her character as a person. As she isn't a real person, that is pointless. There are no chriteria to rate a character as if they were a book or a car. So this is not acceptable. If you find a rating system for characters, let me know. This is the perfect example of a in universe writing. Its obvious that a character is going to have mostly in universe info, as they do not exist outside the universe. But no one has reviewed her as a character. they merely stated that she wasn't to their liking. Big difference. Im sure plenty of people like her, and plenty don't. Its not a fact of any kind.Lollipopfop (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC) We can put it up to a vote or a further discussion, but for now let us go with the wiki majority and NOT go with a reception. If we do, we will have to make it a lot less biased.

Named After

So last night for some reason this crossed my mind: Is she named after Bela Lugosi (the actor who played Dracula is the 1930's)? Does anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.220.181 (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since their names are spelled an pronounced differently (Béla, pronounced "Ay") I'm guessing no. Bella means beautiful in Italian, which gives more contribution to the theory she is a Mary Sue. By the way, you might want to see Wikipedia:Questions for the future • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New Pic

Hey I'm new but I uploaded a new pic of Bella so if anyone wants to use it, go for it. Image:Bella new moon poster.jpg

It's too big and so is the writing on the bottom • S • C • A • R • C • E • 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames and colors

Directed to User:Sleepingfawn, what are you trying to do? The formatting you are using is incorrect and if you'd like the colors to be changed, please discuss it first. ς ح д r خ є 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not werewolves

Just want to point out the Jacob and the other tribe members are not actually werewolves. They are shape shifters. This is explained in the final book during the confrontation with the Volturi. Aro says that because they are not werewolves, they will not attempt to destroy them. I'll edit the other articles.PNW Raven (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

They are people who can turn into wolves, which means they qualify as werewolves. Also, they are referred to as werewolves for the majority of the series (and in the recent film), which would make the term less confusing to people less familiar with the books than "shape-shifters". The distinction is purely in-universe, meaning in the Twilight world there is a distinction between "true werewolves" and "shape-shifters". Andrea (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

bella is not italion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.124.4 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete Reception

There is no other character article with this section. TheiGuard (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Other articles should have a section on real-world reception. As the maintenance tag at the top of the article notes, the majority is currently written from an in-universe perspective, which is not ideal for an encyclopaedic treatment. The Manual of Style on writing about fiction goes into further detail, and is a pretty useful read. Frickative 01:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your sources.The sources you cited were presenting nothing but a biased opinion. A character can't be appraised like a book or a car. And critics may simply say they didnt like her, but they have not rated her as a character, but as a person. That is the OPPOSITE of a not in world perspective. She is NOT a person, and thus opinions on her character are useless.I think that it is only one persons bad opinion that it "should" exist. Obviously most wiki editors disagree.

Can someone help me find positive feedback for the character? TheiGuard (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted the reception portion. Its very strange to have a reception of a character even means. And who can say if it is positive or negative? People can only like or dislike a character, and that is a personal opinion. Its not appropriate. Lollipopfop (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) contact me if this bothers you, and we will put it up for a vote.

How is critiquing a character any different from critiquing a book, which is also about things that "don't exist"? The sources provided right now are from reputable sources, and do not simply say that they don't like Bella—they give valid commentary on her as a character. You are misconstruing in-universe perspective, which would be only using information from the books to describe her. Real-world opinions from notable sources are the opposite of in-universe. There is no justification for removing the Reception section. Andrea (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Vote to keep or delete reception portion;

• delete- not typical, and there is no known criteria for character reception.Lollipopfop (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

keep the reception

because let's be honest here, the ones who are demanding that the reception section be deleted are the usual twit-light fangirls who can't stand the fact that people with a rational mindset realize just what an awful, awful character she actually is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.27.85 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which year the story takes place

I'm removing the recently added 1987 as Bella's year of birth. Compare the weekdays and dates, such as Monday 19 January in New Moon (Bella's back) and Monday 4 June in Eclipse (week from graduation), which are supposed to take place in the same year - to the actual calendar. They don't happen in the same year in real life and so the story is likely not intended to be pinned down to a specific year. Just a vague time frame - mid (first decade of 2000). No way to determine which year she's born. SlightSmile 03:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone tried asking Stephenie Meyer what year she wanted Bella to be born? That seems like the easiest thing. Or find an interview where she mentions it. She must have mentioned it at some point, or at least what year certain books are supposed to be in. Sazza21 (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bella Swan. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-breaking-dawn-ovn-0804aug04,0,6855075.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)