Talk:Gadsby (novel)

message: Already failed on the cover, with the word "Novel".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.204.124 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The text on the cover, like the introduction, and the author's name for that matter, is not part of the text of the novel. CodeTalker (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, WP:NOTFORUM (this is not a discussion page. It's about the article.) Padillah (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  False. 

message: Another lipogrammatical rewrite was just tried - the first in a while! - and immediateyl undone.  Hope springs eternal - or, rather, "wanting good stuff springs always." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there be any sense in having a lipogram version of the article in the Wikipedia (or Draft?) namespace, tagged to keep for Department of Fun?  If it sticks, we could then discuss hat-noting or See also-ing it from this article. –  Reidgreg (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no point to this. Should we have an article about Hamlet written in Elizabethan English? An article about e.e. cummings's works written in lower case with idiosyncratic punctuation? An article about The Odyssey written in Homeric Greek? There's no rational reason for an article about a literary work to attempt to copy the style of that work. If someone wants to do so for fun, that's fine, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. CodeTalker (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - go ahead and do it outside wikipedia! Have a blast. (I just did a cursory search and despite the fact that people have been arguing for years that it would be cool and fun to write about Gadsby in e-less form, nobody has actually done that anywhere, so far as I can tell.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

text: that cumming-s thought sounds good; CitationsFreak (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: But if we didn't have arguments about writing the article lipogramatically, the Talk page would be empty - and what fun would that be? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "imagining" but "reporting." It has been tried and it fails. Aside from being a pointless gimmick that goes against wikipedia policy, it's an obstacle to reader comprehension. But feel free to write your own user page without E's if you think it would be cool. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

text: User:Padillah -- Sorry I didn't see your comment before, but some article talk pages have FAQs, as you can see at Talk:0.999... -- 04:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I think the "Warning" box would be a better tool. It's right there, on the page, so there's no need to want to read the extra FAQ page (which is a navigation choice). I'll see what I can slap together and you guys can fix it if needs be. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  once again 

message: @Randy_Kryn, you say in your edit summary (thank you for that, by the way) that there are four words that contain the letter 'e' in the novel. Can you please list them? I've not seen any reference to this failing at all and I believe it stems from a misunderstanding. Padillah (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . I'm just going by the last paragraph of the lead which includes this information and its source which (below in 'References') details the four instances. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... crap! If the author is going to contradict me, what am I left with? :) Feel free to revert my changes. I simply didn't see these. Well caught. Padillah (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and thanks for keeping good track of edits on this page. Still thinking a good plot summary can be written without an 'e'. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a gifted writer could write a good plot summary without 'e', but would it be better than it would without such a restriction? If not, why would we do it? Is there any precedent for this -- any other Wikipedia article about a book in which the style of the article attempts to mimic the style of the book?And what would happen going forward as miscellaneous future editors made edits to the plot? Would they maintain the lipogrammatic quality, or would they allow some 'e's to slip in, making the whole exercise pointless? And if they did keep the 'e's out, would the prose remain "good", or would it degrade to the horrendous quality we've seen here in the past when miscellaneous editors attempt to write lipogrammatic prose without experience in doing so? CodeTalker (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows? That's all WP:CRYSTAL. Does a rule say that something like that couldn't be tried and published? I don't know all the rules by a longshot, so one may say "no mimicking the article topic". Another exercise of value: the wording of E-prime. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, something like an 'e'-less plot would be a collab and not a single editor's work, which would make it's success assured given time (the open-ended Wikipedia dictate). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What four words?