Talk:The Phantom Tollbooth

message: I removed the "time wasting" addition to the description of these folks not because it was wrong, but because it seemed unnecessary. But that's a judgement call, of course. - DavidWBrooks 22:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lethargians 

message: The plot summary seems to have been lifted from the SparkNotes guide to the book (here: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/tollbooth/ ) and only very slightly changed.
: It's way too long, too. And poorly written. Needs major editing. - DavidWBrooks 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's plagiarized from them its also a copyright violation and should be removed. 68.39.174.238 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have slashed it, but it needs to be better written. I also cut some of the way-to0-much character descriptions; more cutting is needed there, too. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism?

message: The list of "Main Characters" seems to also include many minor characters. --15lsoucy (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is quite the fanboy site, in many ways. Feel free to remove some. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Characters ?!? 

message: The Characters section currently has: "Milo, a boy aged about 15, the main character." Now, I don't have my copy of the book to hand (it's on loan to a niece), but in my head Milo has always been younger than that. Possibly that's because when I first read the book I was seven or eight; who can say? But is there any evidence in the book or anything published elsewhere (I checked the linked interviews and found nothing) that justifies the assertion that Milo is "about 15"? --Kay Dekker (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have no idea which is correct, but it was relatively recently changed from "10" to "15"... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Phantom_Tollbooth&diff=326617986&oldid=313079397 -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed any reference to age. (although 15 does seem old) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I've put a note on the talk page of the user who changed the age to 15 asking for a reference, though as it's from a one-edit IP, I'm not optimistic. --Kay Dekker (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milo's age? 

message: The Annotated Phantom Tollbooth mentions that Milo's age is unstated, as Juster discovered it was "not only unnecessary to be that precise but probably more prudent not to do so, lest some readers decide they were too old to care" (Annotated Phantom Tollbooth p. xxiii). A very early draft has the protagonist named "Tony" instead of "Milo", being ten years old (p. xxxi). The final typed draft said, "There once was a little boy named Milo..." and Juster struck out the word "little" (p. xxxii). At any rate, Milo's age is unstated. 
Ll1324 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Milo's age is unstated

message: No mention of the Elfen Lied writer here, although one of his works redirects here. 75.23.113.150 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a mistake. Which work - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digitopolis? 

message: The two princesses got banned in the Castle in the Air. The princesses are beautiful young ladies but their lives are not so pretty.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quynh.nhu1026 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Rhyme and Reason 

message: Should there be a section for blunders or mishaps? For instance:
* Although Milo (on p. 70) mentions he wants to help Faintly Macabre get out of prison, and manages to rescue the princesses which would get her out of prison (p. 77), nothing is mentioned about her coming out of prison at the end of the book. 
* The drawing of the "orchestral score" on page 126 looks more like a piano score than an orchestral score. 
* Norton himself says that there is no drawing of Milo himself going through the tollbooth (in the New Yorker article).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.79.229 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessary IMO. This is a work of fantasy and entertainment. There is no implicit promise from the author that his world works the same as ours.Sofia Roberts (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loose ends? 

message: Since the list of editions is partial (e.g. see here) should it perhaps by titled "Selected editions"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of editions -> Selected editions 

message: I have found that the entire plot section is written in the in-universe style. I don't know if I am missing the point of the in-universe template, or if this was somehow missed during the review to make this a featured article. Thanks, Gluons12 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a recent featured article, there is consensus it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA.  That might exclude the tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

text: In the plot section, it presents the story in a nonfiction manner, never once using phrases like, "In the novel, Milo does ABC." Even though it is a featured article, shouldn't we still point existing problems out, so as to make it better? Gluons12 (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is under "plot", I took it for granted that people would know it was in the book without needing to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I've removed the tag, pending consensus that it needs it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In MOS:INUNIVERSE, it says that "A plot synopsis written like a historical account" is considered inappropriate. Does simply being in the "plot" section excuse it from this? Gluons12 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That has never been taken to exclude a plot synopsis of reasonable length.  It is not written like a historical account, it is simply a description of the narrative. I will say that most if not all FAs about plays or movies have similar ones. To say "in the novel" would be a bit redundant.  There may be some ambiguity there, but you can go to WP:FA and examine the analogous articles there.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we change the section title to something that would more clearly in your view show the reader that the following is not intended as discussion text, but a plot summary?  (maybe "Plot summary"?) or lead the section with "The following is a summary of the plot line of the book"?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:PLOT states that "Plot summaries and similar recaps of fictional works [...] should be written in an out-of-universe style, presenting the narrative from a displaced, neutral frame of reference from the characters or setting." Therefore, changing the section header would not resolve the problem. I have viewed some of the other featured articles as Wehwalt suggested, and I agree that the in-universe perspective that is here is also present in these articles. I believe that this means that they all are exhibiting the same problem, and should all be fixed.  Thanks, Gluons12 talk 22:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly a broader discussion at WT:FAC is necessary, if you feel the criteria are being misapplied.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section in-universe problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Phantom Tollbooth. 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/20070108215732/http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2001/03/12/juster/ to http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2001/03/12/juster/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Themes section of this article seems to be mostly an original research essay, filled with items written for a blog or a review but not an article. Examples: 
- "Like the Bee, the Humbug's insult to his fellow insect goes over Milo's head, but possibly not the reader's" 
- "Officer Shrift's investigation of the overturning of the Word Market contains the forms of law, without justice" 
- "Although Milo is bored with learning, that does not mean he knew nothing before his journey. He exhibits characteristics of a well-schooled child of his time; his speech is polite and peppered with "please" and "thank you", and when he unexpectedly encounters the partial child, he requests pardon for staring."
I would like to trim it way back, sticking to direct statements made by sources rather than our extrapolations, but it was pointed out that it went through Featured Article Candidate process in pretty much its current form so perhaps I'm mistaken. Any thoughts?
Incidentally, this may have been my favorite book as a kid and is still in the top 10, so this isn't a rant against the book but rather this not-always-encyclopedic article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is sourced. It is from the discussion of the book's themes in the sources, plus a bit from the text of the book itself, such as the bee going over Milo's head to complement Milo's lack of understanding of the insult. To some extent, any discussion of themes involves putting pieces together from different sources. This is in no way unusual. If there are other, better sources than the ones we used, I'd love to use them. Thanks for your comments, I also enjoyed the book as a child.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Things can have sources and be original research by wikipedia's standards if they are summaries or re-phrasing of sources that go beyond an encyclopedic level of presentation or information. But there is a level of subjectivity in that judgment (as there is in most wikipedia editing, of course). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Possibly a bit of WP:SYN, arguably. But I think it's within standards. I'm glad you brought the matter up, too few do.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot about this discussion and stumbled back upon this article, and have edited out some of the wildly excessive verbiage. You will probably disagree, however. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to the wherein. I think your version of the plot description wasn't as true to the actual plot as the earlier one.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes section seems mostly an original research essay 

message: Do we have access to a more precise publication date? Google has shown August 12 and September 1 of 1961. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of one.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication date 

message: "Guilty, guilty, they're all guilty!" bellowed Officer Short Shrift as he strode across the talk page.
"Of what?" asked Milo, although he had come to realise that asking one question tended to lead in the direction of ten more.
"Of making unreferenced statements on Wikipedia, of course." thundered the Humbug, thumbing his way through Wikilawyering for Idiots.
"Obviously!", exclaimed the Duke of Definition. Quite! muttered the Minister of Meaning. Truth will out! countered the Count of Connotation, hurriedly stuffing a Black Diary into his pocket. Exactly! opined the Earl of Essence, not to be outdone: and the Undersecretary of Understanding, almost unheard amid the general huubbub, standing next to a phrase stall in the market and grabbing a few choice incendiary slogans for future use, muttered a quiet Indeed!. MinorProphet (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern seemed to be about the lead section. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead section need not be referenced if it repeats information that is in the body of the article. That's what we do here. This is a WP:FA and is substantially in the condition it was when it passed through WP:FAC. Very clever, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Full admission: I was heavily under the influence and was under the impression that the lede constituted the entire article, since pressing the down arrow appeared to have no effect whatsoever at the time. I might even have leapt to Conclusions. But just suppose the vertically-challenged officer in question had been in charge of the US Capitol....? And Milo found himself back in his room, looking forward to a brighter tomorrow. >MinorProphet (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you enjoyed the article otherwise. I had fun putting it together.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: In the second and third paragraphs of the lead section there are certain quotes and events mentioned that do not have citations. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph "In 1958, Juster had received a Ford Foundation grant for a children's book about cities" and the last sentence of the lead section "Additionally Maurice Sendak, in his introductory "An Appreciation" included in editions of the book since 1996, quotes a critic as comparing The Phantom Tollbooth to Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress: 'As Pilgrim’s Progress is concerned with the awakening of the sluggardly spirit, The Phantom Tollbooth is concerned with the awakening of the lazy mind.'"Jis39 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is entirely cited, except for the plot and the lead section, which are not required to be referenced because the book is a source for the plot and the lead section a summary of what follows. Where a sentence does not have a citation at the end of it, it is supported by the next citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  References