Talk:Curate's egg

message: The examples section looks odd and resembles a trivia section a bit too much. It should, in my eyes, be removed or integrated into the text. Akita86 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: My edit served the following purposes:
*Reduce the image size per guidelines (pictures should not be wider than 400 px)
*Add a caption providing context and title per guidelines
* Format periodical name per MoS title guidelines
*Bypass a redirect and link directly to the relevant article.
By all means revert if you feel these edits are in error, but please explain why they're damaging the article. --Muchness 10:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My gripe was that the narrative to the picture just duplicated what was already set out in the article - the revised version looks fine. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I originally added it because I wanted to reproduce the exact caption from the original publication, but you're right, it was redundant. --Muchness 11:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problemo! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 14:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation for edits

message: From the article:
:"The phrase first appeared in a cartoon in the humorous British magazine Punch on 9 November 1895. Drawn by George du Maurier and entitled "True Humility", it pictured a timid-looking curate taking breakfast in his bishop's house."
Just educated guessing on my part but... That is not true; the phrase came about as a reference to the du Maurier cartoon? --Charles Gaudette 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrase used in ''Punch''? 

message: Can examples be given of the claimed secondary meaning?  The OED examples are consistent with the first, raising the suspicion that secondary uses arise from a simple misunderstanding of the original context. 86.158.25.8 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed, on no knowledge, that the curate is interested in higher criticismm and considers the bible good in parts. Hence the bishop's shock. I do not see the curate as diffident but somewhat smug. Flobster (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, assumptions and perceptions don't help Wikipedia here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary meaning? 

message: I ended up here after seeing a 1939 NYTimes movie review, with this sentence:
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E03E7DE113CE73ABC4951DFB2668382629EDE
"Those notoriously uncompromising gentlemen, the drama critics, found it and its star good in spots, like the vicar's egg."
A bit of research led me to this:
http://www.word-detective.com/092906A.html
"If you've been searching for an explanation of "the Vicar's egg," that may be part of the mystery right there. The phrase is actually "a curate's egg,""
which led me here. Given likely other searchers having this problem, can we forward searches for "vicar's egg" here? I'd love if anyone was up for doing research into how/why/when the 'vicar' entered the picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebug (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How did the vicar enter the picture? We can easily conjecture. In Britain the person in charge of the parish/cure is the vicar, and their assistant is the lower-ranking curate. In France the person in charge of the parish/cure is the curé, and their assistant is the lower-ranking vicaire. The point of the joke is that the person with the egg is low in rank, so the word used will depend on local religion and usage (America probably varies greatly in that respect). FangoFuficius (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicar's Egg? 

message: Are there any examples which indicate that the object of discussion is actually bad overall?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.138.117 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there any "authentic" examples?

message: The article is badly written, full of mumbo-jumbo and over emphatic. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you'd like to improve it then? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't, but I think it is worth pointing out when there is clearly a problem with an article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That really doesn't help. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly written