Talk:Gadsby (novel)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archiving and Summary

I've archived the extensive debate on this page, as it was getting a bit overwhelming.

Much of the debate in the archives revolves around whether or not the article, Gadsby: Champion of Youth should be lipogramatical or not.

One segment felt that the unique and entertaining nature of a lipogramatical article about a book of the same nature attracted interest and was worthy of preservation. The other that ommiting the letter E in the article made it unnecessarily unclear and convoluted (and thus violated Wikipedia's principles).

Since 2005 this debate has gone back and forth. In December 2008, an informal poll was held to determine what the consensus was on this matter. While there was vigorous arguments on both sides, the consensus generally (though not decisively) fell mostly towards removing the lipograms in order to make the article clearer. There remains some contention over this.

As it stands at the time of this writing, the article has had some edits to correct the percieved problems with clarity, including using the letter E where necessary.--Lendorien (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also fitting at this point to say that this archivist was also originator of this poll, that a first draft of this poll was cut for obvious bias, that option two of all drafts of this poll was thoroughly contrary to WP:CFORK policy, that all discussion (not just old discussion) was dropt into archiving in January, and that actual poll voting (following) still shows a majority favoring lipogram (3-4) and a minority favoring nonlipogram (1), just as always:

• 3+4b
• 1
• 3 though fitting with 4a-4b
• 4a
• 4a-4b-4c
• 4b, 4a, 4c
• 1, 4a
• 1, 4a distant
• 1
• 1
• 4b

JJB 19:58, 15 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Or try this summary

But my way of looking at things is worlds apart. I could just as brightly say that, truly and actually, this topic has had a majority in favor of containing a lipogram going way way back to anno Domini two thousand aught four. Only last fall, contributors of both camps (majority and minority) laid down a paradigm that most parts can contain lipograms and a handful would not (though without nailing down final-status particulars). Only about Oct or Nov did it occur (I might say) that all this compromising was thrown out as if it was last month's trash, and a nonlipogram coup hit us; at that point I was inauspiciously out of commission, naturally, and nobody fought against this draft in favor of our prior tightly built community labor.

(Also, I should point out that your archiving hid a signicant corpus of data favoring this summary; but I can just happily bring anything back out of archiving if I should find an important citation.)

So, as long as two factions both want to work on this topic, I am of opinion that, if anybody acts nonchalantly as if an informal Christmas poll is solving anything (or as if ignoring pro-lipogram contributors is now policy), that is a gross mishandling of WP:CON. In fact, WP:CON would apply fittingly to a lipogram with nonlipogram portions, as a working solution: not to a nonlipogram, as a claim of victory.

Naturally I favor a full lipogram, and I did significant work in proving full-lipogram drafts as fully compliant with policy, but this is probably not a working solution as of today, and I will stand for any actual solution that honors both positions from both camps, and in particular, that solution wrought out last autumn, as I said. JJB 22:57, 13 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 'consensus' going back to 2004 (really, a lipogram on the talk page too?). Please see Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions, bullet number three. "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale." Note that once outside comment was invited, this so-called "consensus" for the lipogram was overturned. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What your quotation is actually implying is that narrow informal polls do not automatically trump prior harmonious work toward compromising, which both factions had a hand in formulating. And do you think your arrival was our first discussion from without? Archiving starts with a 50-month-old poll! JJB 18:50, 13 Jun 2009 (UTC) Also look at actual poll voting, prior, por favor. JJB 19:58, 13 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Is a lipogram just letters?

This is in deference to this sentence: "... it is one long lipogram, a composition avoiding words containing certain glyphs entirely..." (emphasis mine). Would it be considered a lipogram if it was written without the use of "?" (question mark)? Are there other considerations for using "glyph" rather than letter? Or is this a hold-out from the old lipogrammed article? Just wanted to check first. Padillah (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Checking with the lipogram article for the definition it would appear the "letter" or a particular "group of letters" is the essential meaning so the word glyphs would appear to be only to avoid the obvious word "letter". A further example of the strange obscurantism this article "was" getting into. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They're almost completely synonymous. Glyph accrues best its distinct meaning when talking about graphemes. Various glyphs, e.g. the upper and lower case versions of a letter, may represent the same grapheme. Gadsby avoids two glyphs (strictly, assuming one font) or one letter. This was also overlooked during the silliness. A "?" may be a glyph but I'm not sure it is a grapheme. It is a grapheme in the sense that it is a fundamental unit of some written languages.

In any case, it seems that a work composed without a certain element, one not indicating speech sounds in this ? case, would technically be considered a lipogram. A void's lipogram shuns whole verbs, not the groups of letters in them. If a lipogrammed novel avoiding the interrogator or the full stop, a grand run-on sentence, were written it would —I think— still be a lipogram, though it might lack coherency, it would certainly lack artistic merit as a lipogram. Really, an unintentional lipogram is still a lipogram. The preceding sentence avoided the sometimes-vowel glyph Y, unintentionally. It also avoided a lot of other elements without volition. Like much of what is written it is a wholly unremarkable lipogram in many ways.Synchronism (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten

Still contains many pieces of awkward writing based on keeping a lipogram. Although there was an attempt at compromise, the antu-lipogrammers still fundamnetally disagreed with having a word prank in wikipedia. So fine. The pro lipogrammers have no desire any more to maintain the article as a botched lipogram. Since the anti lipogrammers felt so strong about things, the burden should be on them to text edit the article to make it all normal now. I want to see that they actually cared about the overall article, not just destroying the lipogram. TCO (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Adding a handful of e's has not turned this into a better article. It seems that the objection to the lipogram was more one of dogma than concern about quality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article, even with just a handful of e's, is much improved. It now actually names who wrote the book, can talk about "characters" instead of "individuals," can talk about what letter is omitted instead of making strange references to "glyphs," etc. I know that I haven't made larger changes to the article yet because I'm not convinced that these aren't all going to get reverted back to some strangely-worded lipogram, so I've been taking a wait and see approach to the minor changes that have been made. Rnb (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article did name the author clearly, in the infobox. I agree that 'individuals' is a more unusual word that 'characters' in this context but what else could it possibly mean? 'Glyph' looks like it is still under consideration for inclusion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no way you'd be able to convince me that the old state of the article was anything but laughably bad, so I'm not even going to argue, but things like glyph still being under consideration is what's worrying me that someone's going to come along and try to get this article back to the previous mess that it was. Rnb (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The word glyph is wrong in this context. Note that 'E' and 'e' are two separate glyphs, despite being the same letter. It therefore should _not_ be under consideration. JulesH (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about. Martin was the last one fighting. The lipogram is wrecked. And your side so no reason for an abject lesson in wikipedia. so fine, show you care about the article and rewrite the whole thing. P.s. Martin I love you. TCO (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, this isn't "I won, you lost". We had a discussion and sentiments fell toward removing the lipogram. I'm sorry if that makes you feel you have to abandon the article. It saddens me to see people put so much effort into something only to decide if they can't have it their way they'll leave. I don't mean to make anyone feel bad about this article. I am not the worlds best copy editor but I will contribute as I see stuff that needs a touch. Articles are never done so please don't think that because the article has not been completely rewritten already that we are abandoning it. We are simply trying to figure what is the best way to say that. And I'll be the first to admit, the lipogram was written well enough that improving the writing of the article takes real thought and effort. I hope this doesn't turn into "pro" vs "con". If you appreciate the subject matter please feel free to help improve the article. Padillah (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But those who supported the lipogram have lost, it is now destroyed. The point you missed was that the subject matter was the lipogram. The only reason the article exists is because the book was a lipogram. By all accounts the book is not a masterpiece; what makes it interesting is the crackpot idea of the author to write a whole novel without using the letter 'e'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I reserve the right to determine, on my own, what points I have and have not missed. The reason the article exists is because the book is notable. If you feel this is in error, please feel free to open and AfD and the community can discuss it. Padillah (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the book notable? Why are Wright's other books not so? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The book is notable for the simple reason that others have taken note of it. It has been noted in reliable sources and, as such, has passed Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Wright's other books may or may not have passed WP:NOTE, they would need to be checked independently. This is one of the big arguments currently at WP:NOTE, is notability transferable? Here's a nice twist, it's possible for Gadsby to be notable and Wright not to be. If there are book reviews but nothing on the author, he's out in the cold. It's all about the sources. Padillah (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is quite true. If the novel is notable that makes the author at least as notable as the author of any notable work is. Don't confuse the availability of sources as affecting notability, it just affects verifiability. But that is another thing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

True enough, it's not a simple as that. But if you've ever argued the nuances of notability with some of those guys over at WP:NOTE you'd understand, they could make it happen. It'd take work but they could do it. :) Padillah (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit sad. Previously, we had a bad article, but at least we could see why that was so. Now, if anything the article's worse, and there's not even the excuse of the lipogram to justify its failings. Oh well. And the article's effectively been abandoned, after its half-hearted conversion from lipogram status. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, jbmurray! I was waiting for you to say that. You basically admit that going back to a (full or partial) lipogram now would work toward improving this topic! (I grant that you think it would still count as "bad", but improving a topic is what it is.) You also say that our group of anti-lipogram contributors is all but abandoning any prior lackadaisical work toward fixing things up. Hmm, shall I bump this back up on my watchlist? JJB 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm not entirely sure it's that bad. What was happening earlier is it was so bad even someone like me could see what needed to change. Now, it's a little less clear. What needs to be changed about it? What can I fix? It's not a case of lack of desire, it's a case of lack of ability. Padillah (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Padillah. General statements like that about an article are "woolly" in the extreme. What specially are you referring to. And this article is not abandoned. It is much improved, but agreed it could do with more - let us work on specifics. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the article is now better but could still use further improvements. Some things I think could be improved: the list of characters should probably be pared down to only important characters, but not having read the book, I'm not sure which those are. I'm also not sure a paragraph is needed to explain what a lipogram is, given that there's a link to the article on lipograms that would explain what one is (although obviously discussing specifics of the lipogram in this particular book should stay.) I think the criticism and acclaim section could use some cleanup, as it is still hard to read. Thoughts? Rnb (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the lipogram example. It's gone. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad I am waking y'all up! Sorry about any baiting. Naturally, I'll happily submit my contributions to WP's community for a group solution, as always. JJB 00:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Like several editors above, I strongly believe the article is better now than it was as a lipogram. Is it good? Probably not. I think the major failing, however, is that it needs sections to be re-written from scratch rather than by tweaking the existing, still-awkward prose. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, to be specific would be good - cite a section - point to a failing - we will see what we can do! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course, Kevinalewis. The quick answer is probably all the sections...! As examples, here's a start:

1. Introduction: "The book primarily deals with the transformation, through youth's vigor, of a moribund and slothful community." Is that really how we would describe the action if we hadn't had a lipogram before? Does anyone seriously write like that in an encylopedia? Take a step back and formulate the book's themes without looking at the article, then see how they compare. I think you'll find the word choices stilted.
2. Plot sections: How is the "Plot introduction" section different from "Plot summary"? How many sections of the current article mention Wright's introduction? The "Lipogrammatic quality" section certainly does. We could consolidate them into a section that lays out Wright's aims with the book. Also, the article suffers from some lengthy quotes that don't seem to be making a point—"Plot summary" contains one without any context. What is that quotation from Gadsby's first paragraph supposed to add? I left it in during my cleanup runs a while back, mainly because I didn't know what it was there for.
3. Characters: Mostly a list. How many of these are important to the plot? We don't need to be exhaustive and list everyone in a Dickens novel; why should we do so in a less important work like Gadsby? Trim the cruft and expand on the main characters. Further, why is the radio station listed in the Characters section? Such organization is what makes me think it would be better to start afresh with some or all of these sections. There are only so many repairs you make to an old car before buying a new one.
4. Lipogrammatic quality: Logically, this section ought to be more important than Characters. At the least, it should be moved higher. It could be fruitfully combined in a section about Wright's purpose. The phrase "inability to use numbers from six to thirty" is clearly related to Wright's phrasing ("The numerals also cause plenty of trouble, for none between six and thirty are available."). As such, let's either quote him directly or make it more clear—for example, "Wright could not use numbers between seven and twenty-nine because they all contain the letter E"). The riffs on famous sayings should probably mention what the original saying is. (How many readers will know Keats's "Endymion"?)
5. Criticism and acclaim: The first paragraph reads like a list of reviews selected for their lipograms rather than their content. I really doubt that every reviewer, or even a majority, chose to copy Wright's style. Are any of these reviews adding to our knowledge about Gadsby, or are they simply showing people like to copy Wright's wordplay? The second paragraph is a mish-mash of works that nod to Wright; there's useful stuff here, but the prose has no guiding thread. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what Phoenixrod said. Above all, there are whole chunks of this article still left over from its lippogrammatic state. It made sense for them to be written that way before. It no longer does. Moreover, there's much expansion that people found hard to do earlier because it was difficult to write lippogrammatically. That excuse no longer holds. That's what I mean by saying that the article is worse now than it was before. Rather than being rewritten, which is what would be required, a few words with "e" in them have simply been scattered here and there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This point-by-point summary is mostly valid, and fixing most all of it is duly fitting, but it has hardly anything to do with throwing out lipogrammaticity. (And it talks about bad writing, with quotations, but offhand I don't think any of it was my writing.) Anyway, I will work from this list as I go through topic history. JJB 18:57, 14 Jun 2009

Inline citations/Harvard

I'm not a fan of Harvard style referencing, so I haven't exactly the biggest urge to learn how it works. :) However, while copy-editing some of the article just now, I noticed a few non-formatted inline citations that remain in the article pointing to the book's introduction with "(Gadsby, introduction)". Could someone who is familiar with Harvard referencing fix these so that they are linked properly? Formatting/citations should be uniform, and I don't want to remove them completely, of course. María (habla conmigo) 14:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. And no need to use {{harvnb}} to do it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would rather reformat to use {{cite}} tags. The current Havb tags were championed by one editor and his preference has never been explained. He has ceased editing the article for the time being and I argue for using refs that require one click to navigate through rather than two. What say the group? Padillah (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite tags are not especially useful when working with different page citations from the same work, which is what we're doing; it's repetitive and wordy. I prefer separating full bibliographic information from short citations, much like an academic work does, when writing literary articles. I have no problem with the Harvard refs, I just don't want to format them. They are preferred by some, however. María (habla conmigo) 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer just to switch to <ref /> tags with direct citations in them. They're much easier to work with than the other forms, and seem to produce reasonable results to me. Plus it adds consistency with the majority of other pages which also use that format. JulesH (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Far more importantly Footnotes (and thus Inline citations) only have just over half with page numbers - these should be provided as a matter of urgency. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that every citation that requires a page number has one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Put up or shut up

It has been six months or so since a decision was made to drop the lipogrammatical form of this article. In that time all that has happened is that a few e's have been added. Most of the text is the same as it was before. There has been no wholesale improvement, just the loss of the lipogram.

If no substantial improvement is made soon I suggest the article is returned to its former lipogramamtical glory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the article has been much improved. It could certainly use more work but it's nowhere near the train wreck that it was when it was written as a word puzzle. Rnb (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Put up or shut up: Thank you so much for this proposal, Martin, I concur with all my soul and will support you in this work thoroughgoingly. I'm thinking of a prior proposal in which this or that tidbit was allowably nonlipogrammatic, such as an infobox, but as you know I will go as far as this situation allows. JJB 01:12, 13 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I came here originally in response to an RfC concerning the lipogram. I found two sides, one side who wanted the article to be entirely lippogramatical in all respects (infobox, links, references, and even the talk page) and the other side who wanted no lipograms at all, except maybe for a very short example. Most of my work and edits were aimed at removing what I saw as the excessive use of the lipogram and to arrive at what I thought was a good compromise, namely that the main text of the article should be a lipgram but the infobox, links, references should not be. This got round the really serious problems like the mangling of the author's name and the inability to refer to the missing letter. Having reached what I considered to be a good compromise and indeed a consensus, I was very surprised to fined that one side then continued to push for the complete removal of the lipogrammatical content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup...they are a bunch of dead enders and edit warrers. They took any compromise as a sign of weakness. 69.255.0.193 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated this comment after it was removed by an anonymous editor as it is not usual to remove content from the talk pages. The comment may be strongly worded but is not a personal attack as it refers to a vaguely specified group of people rather than an individual, rather like saying 'all politicians are liars'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus determined that the article should not be a lipogram. Also, it looks pretty different to me... Let's not waste time here discussing this all over again. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus that the article should not be a lipogram. Please re-read the discussions that resulted from the RfC and note my comment above. After reaching a consensus, one side continued relentlessly to push their PoV.Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And now after the article has been generally made to be readable, the other side stops by once every few months to say the article is much worse off than before and suggests we go back to referring to "inhabitants" and "gylphs" instead of "characters" and the letter E. What do you see as being the main problems with the article as it now stands, apart from it not being a word game? Rnb (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]

Firstly you are putting up an Aunt Sally (strawman) argument about glyphs and the letter E. At my suggestion, both these were added to the infobox and I am quite happy for them to remain there. But this is really about the spirit of the book. By far, the most notable thing about the book is that, for some crackpot reason, the author decided to write it without using the letter 'E'. By doing the same in the article (with sensible limited exceptions) we can show some of the spirit in which the book was written far better than the boring words we now have do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So if the only "improvement" you want to see to the article is the reversion back to a word puzzle, what's this about "put up or shut up"? What changes did you expect people to make to the article that would have satisfied you? Rnb (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No one refers to the book itself as a word puzzle just because it is a lipogram, why then call a lipogrammatical article one? What I actually expected was what sadly happened. Words were changed to in include the letter 'e'; in some cases rather perversely. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the diff above, do you really think the only changes made were to add a couple of Es? A lot of cleanup has been done and a lot of cruft has been removed. It would take someone who's read the book to do parts of the remaining cleanup and I don't know that anyone here has. I know I'm not willing to. Rnb (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of mindlessly reverting to what would appear (based on earlier discussion) to be an arguably inferior version, how about doing something about the specific suggestions that I made in March and that have been largely ignored? It would appear that it is easier to play word games (either on the talk page or in the article) than it is to substantively improve the article for an encyclopedia reader. I admit I'm guilty of this as well—I have not and at this point do not intend to read the book. As a result, I don't think I am qualified to fix the article as it deserves, but I tried to propose the path in the Article needs to be rewritten section. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in 'improving' the article by adding the letter 'e' throughout, especially when those who claimed that they would do this have done no such thing. I am happy to work with anyone who accepts the compromise solution proposed above to make the article as readable as possible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a definite consensus for removing the lipogram; I'm sorry if you can't see that or disagree with it. Perhaps you should stop or take Phoenixrod's advice before you violate WP:POINT? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have invited comments on this from the Content noticeboard. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Conflict:) My summary is at Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth#Archiving and Summary. I'm sorry, sir, that I didn't say anything loud at your first string of contributions to this topic; almost right away, though, I saw what I thought was good compromising and harmony from both factions, and so I sat out for a bit. But now that it looks as if it was actually a coup and not a harmonious club, I can only try to go back to that prior paradigm of compromising. First I will go through all contributions (including that point-by-point from my pal Phoínixrod), and I will only put in my own hand again upon thinking through all that and positioning my contributions accordingly. (Oh, and can you kindly calm down this ruminating about WP:POINT, it is a tiring claim in that this lipogram was our standard back from 2004.) JJB 23:13, 13 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Can you please type more clearly (read: not in a lipogrammatic format)? I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

@Ed17 If anyone should take a step back it is the anti-lipogram supporters. Please take a look at the state of this article at the time of the RfC. At that time it was entirely lipogrammatical, with even the links being lipograms to dummy articles with redirects to make it all work. There was considerable support for that state of affairs at the time but I managed to gain several concessions from the pro-lipogram editors to reach a clear consensus that only the main text should be a lipogram. This consensus was recored on the talk page and as a hidden comment at the top of the article. Later on, the anti-lipogram editors renagued on this consensus and decided that they would concede nothing at all and that there would be a no lipograms.

One thing I like about WP is that the history of discussions is recorded for all to see. Please read the archived talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So six months after you said that there seemed to be a majority for no lipogram and that someone should have a go at re-writing it as a non-lipogram, and after editors came and fixed the article, you're now trying to get people to agree to an older version of the consensus? Rnb (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never supported 'no lipogram'. After those against the lipogram renagued on the earlier consensus, many of the lipogram supporters appeared to dessert (probably ground down by the relentless moaning of the antis), leaving a majority against the lipogram. They claimed that the article would be greatly improved by their additions but after six months there is not much improvement, so, yes, I think we should go back to the real consensus that was recorded in the talk page and the article itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you supported 'no lipogram,' just that you seemed to recognize that a new consensus had formed against a lipogram, which, now that a lot of work has gone into the article, you no longer want to recognize. But this isn't going anywhere. I can say I'd be happy to allow the article to be a lipogram if it's as clear as a non-lipogram, at which point people will go in and change words like "typewriter" to "typing contraption" and claim it's the same thing and we're back to arguing about clarity. After looking at the article for the Perec novel, only the plot summary of the article is written as a lipogram. While I still think it's goofy and not as clear as it could be, what's wrong with that approach for this article? We can sit here and argue about consensus but it's becoming clear that all that's going to happen from that approach is either we'll all get bored and walk away from this discussion and return in six months to repeat it or we'll all start edit warring and acting like idiots over an article that nobody else cares about. So how about a plot summary lipogram? Or a link to an alternate lipogrammed version from this one? Again, I don't think either is as good as the article is now but I'm really starting to get tired of talking about this. Rnb (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We came to a reasonable compromise before, which was that the the all the text should be a lipogram but other parts, such as the infobox, links, references, need not be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is still difficult to read ("moribund and slothful"?), but it's immensely better than the last lipogram version, which failed to give the author's full name, classify the work as a novel, or tell the reader which letter is omitted—pretty important things, yes? The only solution is to keep improving the language, without restrictions. Obviously, the lipogram version is more fun to write, and obviously it's a fun joke for the reader, but it's impossible to have it not stand in the way of the article's purpose of describing its topic as well as possible. Maybe propose lipo.wikipedia.org? —JAO • T • C 21:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

None of your objections stands up to scrutiny. What is wrong with "moribund and slothful"? They are are both perfectly normal English words. We have a 'Simple English' version of WP for those of limited vocabulary or for those who do not have English as their first language. Your points that the name of the author is not given or that the omitted letter cannot be identified were overcome long ago in a consensus version of the article in which the letter 'e' was allowed everywhere except the main text. These details were given in an infobox.

Once you accept that it is not possible to write readable English without the use of the letter 'e' you might as well replace the article with, 'This book was a deluded attempt by Wright to produce a novel without using the letter 'e'. It is, of course, completely unintelligible.' Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly not an unbiased editor able to view this work with the eyes of a critic and able to see the need to use the full arsenal of English to describe the subject. There should be no restrictions of that process. That this work is a clever, lucid and informed piece of writing I don't doubt but we should not be preventing editorial work here on the basis of the same restrictions. We need the freedom to freely quote all relevant commentators whether or not the keep to the same lipogramic scheme. I appreciate your support of the lipogram of the author but that is no reason for it's use here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of staid, dour, killjoy Gradgrinds. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 15 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You go Dpbsmith. But do watch out not to attack contributors. JJB 19:43, 15 Jun 2009

Because it's really awful to want to have an article that can be read by most people without having to click on a bunch of links and/or consult a dictionary. Rnb (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindly list particulars, s'il vous plaît. JJB 20:32, 15 Jun 2009

You want specifics? How bout how the very definition of the word "intrawar" was changed so it could be used? Do you remember that? That's unacceptable. Padillah (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your link didn't support your claim. I was not at any point changing any signification of any word. If I had, it would not stand. But both words in that link apply. Gadsby is both prior to war, intrawar, and postwar (and thus prior to World War Two). Now, naturally, which word is most high-quality is worthy of discussion; or I could cut out both words if you think fitting; but that is normal harmonious collaboration, not attacks against contributors, thanks. JJB 23:23, 15 Jun 2009

And this is one of the big problems with doing stuff the way it was being done. The link I pasted is a diff regarding the two words, what's not shown, and you conveniently forget is that there was a redirect page created under "Intrawar" that redirected to "Interwar"., The word was litterally being redefined in an effort to create a perfectly lipogrammatic article. I'm sure an admin can look up the delete logs if you feel the need. But that's not the point. JJB asked for specific examples, there's a specific example of the content being reordered and the links and redirects being manipulated to convey an idea that's much easier stated simply. Yes, it can (and, in fact, was) stated more directly, but that, again, is not what JJB asked. Rnb made reference to an article that had to be read and understood through links and redirects, JJB asked for an example - I provided that example. Padillah (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I had forgot part of this, and I was right. But wikilinks do not signify or do any changing of any signification. Intrawar is a word and should link to a topic. Anyway, this is not a situation involving a topic that "had to" adopt links for anybody to grasp it: again, if you think "intrawar" too uncommon for most folks' vocabulary, that is not a lipogram point, that is a point to discuss and work out. "First World War" is solid phrasing in"staid" of "intrawar", but is not as short or as simply said. JJB 00:46, 16 Jun 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case in the example I provided. At the time "intrawar" was linked to a REDIRECT page that went to "interwar". The "intrawar" link was correct but the "intrawar" page was redirected to "interwar" in an effort to redefine the word as it was being used in the article. I thought I could depend on JJB and Jbmurray to remember correctly but I guess I'll have to dig through the talk archive and get a little diff to jog their memory. This is what was happening before and what Rnb was refering to when he mentioned clicking a bunch of links. I'm not trying to argue that there was a better word than "intrawar" I'm pointing out a situation in which the word was being used blatantly incorrectly for the sake of not having an "e". Gadsby is not set during a war, it is set between the two world wars. But, because someone was either too lazy or too ill-informed to phrase that without using an "e" they resorted to redefining "intrawar". You can pretend to not remember all you want but I am relying on your better side to be honest with yourself. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For those of you looking for the content of the "intrawar" page I had an admin look it up. According to them the content for that page has only ever been a redirect to the "interwar" article. A deliberately misleading redirect used to maintain the lipogram on this article. There, that's what rnb was talking about. Padillah (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Padillah, kind sir, you mistook this on two counts. First, Gadsby spans roughly 1906-1921. Did you look at what I just said? "Both words apply. Gadsby is both prior to war, intrawar, and postwar (and thus prior to World War Two)." Also, you claim I was consciously tricking folks; but links do not signify synonymy on WP, and I did not imply that my links did so. What should "intrawar" link to? Or should it link to nothing (as now)? In short, you paint my good-faith contributions as if lipogram writing always forcibly links to lying. I just might wind up not saying anything additional about what I think of as this silly rabbit trail. JJB 18:08, 16 Jun 2009 (UTC)

@Dpbsmith, please refrain from name calling. As erudite as it may be, it is name calling none the less and could be construed as an attack. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of slothful, I have been rather slothful of late (at least in regards to WP, RL is getting in the way). Martin, please do not try and revert this to the previous lipogram version. Concensus has been established and recognized (by you specifically) and if you were the one to do the revert it would almost certainly be a violation of WP:POINT. I'm under the impression JJB said something regarding this but I've no idea what it was so suffice it to say that the given situation is one where the pointy intent would not be hard to discern. Having said that I'd like to submit that Kevinalewis is correct in that you do not appear to be unbiased. In fact, statements like "I have no interest in 'improving' the article by adding the letter 'e' throughout" are pretty telling. To view the opposition as "simply adding the letter 'e'" is disingenuous and very biased. You act as if the very letter is useless and we're just putting it in the article (not even in words, just typing it at random places in the article) as a means to irritate you. You can't expect to be taken seriously with this attitude. As much as writing this article as a lipogram would, in your mind, teach volumes to those that read it, you must understand how much more illuminating it would be to describe the work fully and completely. To be able to quote the author's reason for writing the work in the first place I would think is paramount to writing about the book at all. Padillah (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Padillah, I too don't know what you thought I said, so why bring it up? And my drafts did talk about why Wright did it. Your quotation of Wright is a bit much, in that I had originally brought it in via summary, but it is now duplicating (a sorry draft of) my summary, and thus occurs slightly unduly. JJB 19:43, 15 Jun 2009 But I think I know how to cut through this discussion with an original proposal, in a half a mo. JJB 19:45, 15 Jun 2009

What makes you think a reader would rather hear from you than the author of the work they are researching? Seems a tad self-important to relegate the authors quote to the background because you summarize it. I bring it up only to point out that you are not as good at communicating as you might think. Any restriction that keeps out an authors quote regarding the impetus behind a work is bad. To say that an authors quote is "a bit much" (in light of your summary) is self-aggrandizing and conceited and gives insight into the reasons you prefer the lipogram. It gives you a bit of fame and a chance to impress others with your notably lacking English skills. I say "notably lacking" as an observation since several here have remarked at not being able to understand your comments when posted as lipograms. Your POV is showing. Padillah (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I say why at Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth#Cutting through all this logjam?. Wright is a bit wordy, and your position is a bit ramrod-stiff. At its logical conclusion, your position would favor cutting out all our work, and pasting in Wright's full introduction with nothing on top. Sorry. (And what, I want to grow famous off this topic, though I was ignoring it for six months?) Kindly watch out for making invalid assumptions about contributors and WP:NPA, thanks. JJB 23:13, 15 Jun 2009

52 words is too wordy for you? Wow, that's impatience at it's best. The quote in question is 52 words long, but that's apparently too much for you. Well, I'm sure whatever you would have written in it's staid would have been golden I'd rather hear from the author themselves. And, inasmuch as Wright wrote an encyclopedia entry on Gadsby, I say let's use it. Oh, wait. He didn't, so you're making strawman arguments huh? Padillah (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cutting through all this logjam?

How about this collaboration paradigm, which is actually what I was thinking way back upon my first introduction to this topic: All contributors work toward improving wording. That's all. A significant chunk of arguing has lain on a faulty paradigm, that a lipogram qua lipogram is justification for undoing nonlipogram contributions; no, all of us should (as always) fold original contributions into an ongoing high-quality collaboration, without lipogrammaticity always standing as primary. That got in our way for many moons.

History shows us that, with only occasional outlying datapoints, choosing lipogram or nonlipogram always follows that which contributors think will work toward improving this topic's writing. My thought was and is, as you know, that lipogrammaticity can almost always work toward improving this topic, in its various parts, and holistically also. But I do not think that at any point I was arguing against improving phrasing. Why don't contributors just hold all particular contribution discussions in primary light of choosing "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on "Will this contribution work toward topic quality?" That is, say, if contributors want to fight out a distinction such as our prior arguing about "glyphic" or "allophonic" classification: without going back on a pro-lipogram and anti-lipogram kick, discussion simply looks at which is most fitting toward B-Class (and A-Class), and affirms a local conclusion such as that "glyph" lacks significant accuracy and should drop out of our options list. (Naturally, I did not fight to hold on to "glyph" upon noticing its allophonic ambiguity.) That way, if local lipograms occur sporadically and vanish sporadically, nobody is pulling out any hair about it.

So how's about it? Can contributors at minimum all affirm this paradigm, postponing any arguing about lipogram into "final-status talks"? JJB 20:29, 15 Jun 2009 (UTC)

I'd feel alright about this, except for one thing: I think there are a few things that have to be included in the article and not just in an infobox and not hidden behind a link. These things contain the letter E. One is the author's full name and the other is that the subject of this article is a novel. I don't think either of these things could ever be improved with other wording (calling it a "work of fiction" for example is so vague as to be pointless, and referring to the author only as "Wright" is just a bad idea) so it kind of causes a problem. I've said it before: if this article could actually be written cleanly as a lipogram, using modern day English, I would not care. Thoughts? Rnb (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see your objection to having this information only in the infobox. It is there, at the start of the article, in plain English for all to see. It is this that makes me thing your objections are more based on dogma than benefit to the reader. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we put the entire article in the infobox then, if it's the only part of the article that's open to allowing clear and accurate information to describe the subject, which is, after all, the point of having an article in the first place. Rnb (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to improving the article. The fear I have is the arguments over which word best describes a certain condition. Whic amounts to arguing for or against a lipogram. The other problem is this: a lipogram is generally an entire work, not several words from the middle of a paragraph. This amounts to allowing the article to be non-lipogramatic. Unless you are suggesting you be allowed to slowly chip away, word by word, until it's back to being a lipogram. Is that what you mean? I have to question the motives of anyone that would purport to be a better source for a work than the author of the particular work. Padillah (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindly do not talk about my summarizing a quotation as if it counts as purporting or constituting "JJB" as sourcing. WP is not sourcing. JJB 23:00, 15 Jun 2009 (UTC)

What? I take umbrage with you supplanting your efforts over those of the author. It was a 52 word quote that directly addressed the topic at hand (why he wrote the book as a lipogram). To think that anything you say should be allowed to replace that is pretty self-indulgent. Padillah (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm starting to think that I'm probably baiting you, in that you wind up quibbling about such trivia and turning discussion into a proof of how I look indulging to you. An accumulation of that is a bit of a strain on good faith. But I'm dropping it now. JJB 01:03, 16 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Can I put it this way. If it were possible to convey all the information that you would like to in the form of a lipogram would you be happy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I think Padillah and Rnb both want to affirm my proposal (not counting any arguing about lipogram and non, which was my point anyway). If you and I can start with that, and if nobody starts arguing about "Vin Wright" or "glyph" or such in infobox or first graf or such until particular contributions occur, I think our paradigm of harmonious collaboration can roll again. That's all I'm going for right now. JJB 23:00, 15 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Martin, what I'm saying is what is the difference between not arguing over a lipogram and not writing a lipogram? I guess I'm back to my standard position when it comes to JJB, I'm not sure I understood what he said. So, JJB, are you proposing that we not mention lipogram and simply improve the article, lipogram or not? No arguing over word choice? Then YES, I agree. Padillah (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, discussing our choosing of words would still not rid us of disputation and arguing, but at minimum, if all of us limit discussion to which word works toward topic quality, that works, and that is what I did upon first contributing to this topic. Nobody should go around forcing contributors to comply with any lipogram individually; but if anybody can find a quality lipogram to "fold in" a nonlipogrammatic contribution, that works most suitably. JJB 01:03, 16 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Thick sophistry

This new discussion and partial dredging of the past is quite hilarious to me, since JJB was the one who created that blatantly incorrect redirect of intrawar to interwar (I believe it was along about July of 2008), and it was used exactly once in all of Wikipedia: here. Of course, all that has happened with this latest flare-up over lipograms is a bunch of talk page sophistry and attempts to reclaim and redefine the past.

Has anyone but me actually examined the article history? For the record, JJB greatly expanded the article about a year ago (the Feb. '08 version is before his changes, and the differences from the Feb. 08 version till now are here). The period of July-August 2008 is when most of the lipogrammatic brilliance/damage (depending on your viewpoint) was incorporated, thanks to JJB's hard work. It was almost immediately challenged (by User:Soap, for example), so it's laughable to claim that there was ever a consensus for the lipogram, especially in its form last autumn. If you look through the archives, it's true that editors periodically wanted to maintain a lipogrammatical article before 2008, but it's also true that even those proposing a lipogram seemed to think it was beyond the pale and weren't wedded to the idea. It is furthermore true that those old proposals for a lipogram dealt with a stub, not the longer article we have now. The current "pro-lipogram" camp seems to have been collectively pretending that the lipogram was the standard before JJB's changes; it wasn't.

I'm not trying to throw mud here. But I believe that (once again) the discussion is going nowhere and some of the participants either aren't clear on what happened before or are trying to obscure the past. In any case, I made suggestions in March that continue to be ignored. These suggestions do not involve lipograms; they should be a starting point for anyone to improve the article, no matter how they feel about the letter e. Let's tone down the rancor and the franctic, impassioned appeals across the spectrum of lipograms. This article really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.

Can we just work on improving the article already?! Start by reading Gadsby. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for saying and researching that; I agree with all of your points. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsynonymous links to similar but distinct topics fully comply with policy; all this digging up of my link as if "blatantly" wrong is not improving anything. Also, I did scan all of Gadsby and all of this history upon my own arrival; but I don't typically play up my own contributions (thank you for doing so). And history shows it is just as laughably said that any majority was favoring a nonlipogram at any point back to 2004. In fact, history has always shown a sixty-forty split favoring lipogram; this is an indication for compromising, as all of us in fact did. But all our summarizing of history is only air. Also, I did say what I thought about your last list of work to plow through; I applaud your list, in that it was just what I was asking for throughout our last discussion. So to all, our compromising was valid; my last proposal is valid; toning down rancor and frantic passion is valid all across this board; and I will back off from talk and put in a salvo of contributions, in my own idiom. JJB 18:22, 17 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Viva la lipograma!

Alahu Akbhar! 69.255.0.193 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lipogrammatic abbreviations

Wright uses abbreviations on occasion, but as he explains in the introduction, only if a full form is similarly lipogrammatic. Examples include "Dr.", "P.S.", and "T.N.T.".

TNT is "trinitrotoluene", clearly NOT lipogrammatic with respect to "e", unless there's an older spelling (perhaps trinitrotoluol?) used in the author's day. Magaroja (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Im pretty sure it's trinitrotoluol. That word came up for discussion last year when we lipo'd the whole article. Similarly 1906 isnt really nineteen oh six, it's "aught six", and so on. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wright avoided spelling words differently just to avoid the letter E. This standard held for common contractions, including "ain't" (is not), "atta" (that a), and "dunno" (do not know). etc

Similarly, the above common contractions don't contain the letter E anyway. Neither do the non-standard forms of the other words that follow. Have I missed something, or does the second half of this section not make any sense? Wikiwikiwoolgar (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What the section is trying to explain is that the book is a true lipogram, it doesn't just "look" like one. Even if you expand the abbreviations it's still a lipogram. Even if you correct the spelling of slang and catch-phrases, it's still a lipogram. Now, the trick to remember is that phrasing comes from the old, lipogrammatical article and may be phrased in such a way as to try and retain a lipogram so it might not make any sense because of that. Feel free to rephrase it. Padillah (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Back to being a lipogram - we have tried the alternative and it did not work.

The pro-lipogram editors left this article some months ago, not because there was consensus but just because they were worn down by the endless dogma of those against a lipogram, and also because they were persuaded by the claims that the article would be transformed into a well-written and exciting article; these claims have not materialized. All we have seen is the slow addition of a number of e's in a fashion that is generally pointless and sometimes just perverse ('fifty-year old man' vs 'man of fifty', '...named John Gadsby; he calls upon the youth...' vs '...named John Gadsby, who calls upon the youth'.

We have given the dogmatic idea that all WP articles must have the same frequency of letters a try and it has failed to achieve anything worth while. Now is the time to return the article to its natural state of being a lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No; the current version of the article is much easier to read than the lipogram. Can you not let a dead horse stay dead? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 14:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look through the history of this article you will see that there was once a clear consensus to retain the lipogram. This may have moved, at one time, towards a consensus to drop it but there is no reason it cannot move back again.

Perhaps you could explain how 'fifty-year old man' is clearer than 'man of fifty', or '...named John Gadsby; he calls upon the youth...' is clearer than '...named John Gadsby, who calls upon the youth'. These just look like pointless attempts to introduce the letter 'e' into the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. There was never the consensus you claim. If there were, surely you could produce proof, like a link that shows a consensus? And further, that the consensus is agreed on by more editors than you? (In the mean time, your recent edits appear to be pointless attempts to remove the letter 'e' from the article. Which to anyone who hasn't seen the talk page seem ridiculous.) -65.30.183.17 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Look back through the history of the article, there was quite a long time when it was stable and had hidden text to inform new editors of the consensus to be a lipogram. What is your objection to the lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Our first duty to our visitors is to inform with clarity and accuracy, not to gratify with wit and cunning. Although it's most charming, without a doubt, to put forward a lipogrammatic column on Gadsby, I don't think it fulfills any significant (that is, important for this program of information compilation) goal to do so, and this constraint puts a long-lasting, and not totally insignificant, strain both upon our authors and upon any curious, bookish inquisitors visiting this illuminating composition. It simply isn't in accord with our ordinary modality of formal writing to say "man of fifty" willy-nilly in a scholarly situation such as this. And such minor modifications do add up to significantly impact, if not all 'normal' visitors of this digital publication, at minimum an occasional young child or a pupil of our vocabulary from a distant nation. On such grounds, I would not vouch for a shift back to any paradigm lacking such an ubiquitous symbol. If you truly want to work on a lipogramatic variant of Gadsby, Martin, why not craft a humorous fork at Talk:Gadbsy/Lipogram or similar? -Taciturnity (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Also!! If you transform Gadsby back into a lipogram, you will abandon all ability...

• ... to say what kind of book Gadsby is. (nor to apply common subtitular words)
• ... to impart in full Gadsby's author to visitors (nor additional authors).
• ... to say what symbol this book is missing!!! (nor to discuss grammatical topics)

That trinity of complications, on its own, is obviously grounds for avoiding lipogrammatizing Gadsby. It simply can't work as lucidly as a non-lipogram would; you could do it, but it isn't at all practical. -Lackofsound (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Evidently, enlisting the letter 'e' excessively enables comprehension.

I am not sure which side of the argument you are supporting, you have done a very good job of showing how well the job can be done without a serious loss of readability.

Your three main points are an Aunt Sally (strawman argument). I was on of those responsible for getting editors who insisted on having the whole article as a lipogram (that is to say all links, references and even the talk page) to accept an infobox in which the information you describe could be clearly presented, using the letter 'e' as required.

I would be happy to have a fork with the main article being a lipogram with a link to Gadsby - non-lippogrammatical version for those who cannot understand the spirit in which the book was written.-Another person 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I hope your argument isn't "padillaH sucks at copy edit so we get to make the article a lipogram." Just because I'm not a doctor doesn't mean I'm not smart enough to know you don't cure cancer with aspirin. Same goes for the article, just because I'm not a very good copy editor doesn't mean I'm wrong about a lipogram affecting the quality of the article. Also, there's the simple notion of Real Life. You may notice my recent contributions are rather thin. Work has really picked up and I simply don't have the time to waste I once did. Padillah (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, it a matter of, 'The claimed and expected improvements to this article have not materialized - we have lost the lipogram and gained nothing'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• This also is not a matter of wait long enough for other editors to go quiet and we will revert the article to a restricted editing policy which is against std wikipedia policies. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Once there was a recorded consensus to keep this article as a lipogram. That changed. It can change again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, dropping the 'e' ellipsis now. I didn't really adopt the lipogram style to support your cause; I did it as an experiment, to see for myself how many things could and couldn't be addressed. In some cases I actually had to drop a certain line of argument, and in many cases I had to completely restructure a sentence or paragraph, in order to avoid things like most passive verb forms. It was also a pain not to be able to use words like "page" or "article", which is much less of a burden than not mentioning words like "novel", "character", or "letter" in Gadsby.

Martin, you can't just put the entire grammar section into an infobox. How are we to discuss past-tense complications like "-ed" in the course of the article? Nor is it acceptable to never mention the exclusion of "e" again after the infobox; it should properly be in the lead section of the article, and in numerous later sections. Nor is it acceptable not to cite relevant sources such as famous authors or quotes that have "e"s in them! Now explain to me how on earth we can render this paragraph without losing any content, clarity or smoothness!:

"In spite of these constraints, the novel remains grammatically correct. The introduction explains that Wright's primary difficulty was avoiding the "-ed" suffix for past tense verbs; the only ways he could write them were to use ablauts (sing, sang, sung), modal auxiliary forms, and a short list of participles. Scarcity of word choice also drastically limited discussion involving quantities, pronouns, and many common words; Wright lamented his inability to use any number from seven to twenty-nine.[1] Word Ways, a linguistics journal, stated that Wright's vocabulary could contain only about half of Kucera and Francis's Brown Corpus, a computational analysis that lists common words. However, by using the lipogram with such tight constraints, Wright restricted himself to one-sixth that list."

The only real way a lipogram could possibly work on this article is if you chose a different letter than e, so that we could accurately and straightforwardly discuss the central article subject; but then the effort wouldn't be worth it, because more people would be negatively impacted by circumlocutions than would actually notice what letter we were excluding. Besides, I would argue that my above lipogrammatic sentences are only comprehensible with a bit of difficulty. :) I wouldn't be surprised if you misunderstood an occasional line I said, because we rely so much on common formulations to automatically decode meaning, and even a close synonym (much less a distant related word) can bungle that. -Silence (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that Gadsby would be clearer and smoother if Wright had decided to use the letter 'e', but he did not, he decided to write a complete novel as a lipogram and that is the only thing that makes it notable and worthy of inclusion in WP. There are no WP articles on Wright's other books.

However, I can see that, with the current editors, there is no consensus for a total lipogram so let me suggest a compromise that I have probably rejected in the past. How about writing one or two complete sections as a (unannounced) lipogram? Perhaps 'Plot summary' could be a lipogram and maybe one other section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice you didn't try to provide a version of the above paragraph that conveys the same message, with equal clarity, without the letter 'e'. I think that basically settles the issue, until someone does provide a working example.

Anyway, I don't see any point to just doing a section or two; it would be too easy (the 'Character' section already has barely any 'e's), wouldn't improve the article's encyclopedic quality, and wouldn't impress even the very small minority of readers who happened to notice it, while it would still hamper the quality of prose we use, as we're forced to eschew 'the' and the like. I don't see why you're opposed to my suggestion of creating a lipogram version of our Gadsby article in talk-space or user-space. It would still be something other editors could check out, if we put a link at the top of this talk page; and if you (and anyone else who wishes to contribute) did a truly amazing job on that lipogram, maybe someday, months or years down the line, you might be able to use that page's quality as leverage for enacting some sort of compromise? You can say, "See? It can work, just read this page I made and it'll be proven." (And yes, I know it's been done before, but that's unconvincing because the older version of the article also was missing a lot of the current version's content and clarity.) -Silence (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you really expect me to attempt to lipogramize? your text? I first have to accept the assumption that that is what we want to say.

As I said, I would only support two versions if the main one was a lipogram. If you look back through the talk page you will see couple of expressions of delight from readers who discovered after reading the article that it was a lipogram. I seriously doubt that anybody has read the current article. But it is not going to happen, so I will leave things as they are for now at least. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

And look at how "slothful and moribund" this talk is now! Six months of "taciturnity" and six of "lack of sound"! Last nonminor contributor was JJB 09-26-2009!

Martin Hogbin has laid out his proposals fully rightly all along, and still nobody who is against lipogrammaticity wants to go about improving anything. History shows such contributors only want occasionally to bat away a pro-lipogram flyby, possibly thinking that it is wisdom to undo a foolish WP:POINT-scoring vandalism that has not as many of that symbol as prior, but not surmising that an undo that insists on upping this quantity is just as foolish and pointy and is not about improving anything. Look at this diff! Our "harmonious club" only puts in two throwaway thoughts annually now!

I applaud "Taciturnity"'s paragraph, which was of such crystal clarity that I did not catch it as a lipogram until I got to "Lackofsound"'s graf (in which it was obvious), and that's saying a lot. (I actually thought you to sarcastically favor lipogramming, until you said not.) You wound up making my own point without my having to do so: lipogram is just a subvocabulary that allows us to say anything in its own idiom, with our imaginations as its only limits. Just as any vocabulary would, in fact. You ask for a lipogram of your graf; I am (cough cough) a bit of a pro at this, and most of it was right in history anyway.

This is a lipogrammatic paragraph that is in all points synonymous with your proposal (though its last point, just as in your graf, is an untruth, in that it mistook A. Ross's actual claim):

Although it adopts such constraints, Wright's book still conforms to all grammatical standards. Gadsby's introduction shows plainly that Wright's primary difficulty was avoiding lipogrammatically invalid suffixation found in past conjugations of action words; his only practical way of writing about past action was by using ablauts (sing, sang, sung), modal auxiliary forms, and a short list of participials. Scarcity of word options also drastically limits discussion involving quantity, pronouns, and many common words; Wright told sadly of his inability to talk about any quantity past six, until coming to thirty (Wright 1939, introduction). Word Ways, a linguistics journal, said that Wright's vocabulary could contain only about half of Brown's "Standard Corpus" (its two authors list common words in a computational analysis); but by using a lipogram with such tight constraints, Wright was bound to a sixth of that list.

This is what I actually had in history, which I favor slightly by comparison:

Notwithstanding this artistic constraint, Wright's narration is fully grammatical and lucid. His introduction holds that his primary difficulty was avoiding typical suffixation for past actions; ablauts, modal auxiliary forms, and a short list of participials accomplish that function in Gadsby. Scarcity of vocabulary also drastically limits discussion of quantity, and availability of pronouns and many common words (Book of Lists); Wright dryly broods about his inability to count any quantity from six to thirty (Gadsby, introduction). Word Ways, a linguistics journal, said that Wright's vocabulary could contain fully half of W. Francis's Brown Corpus, a computational analysis that lists common words; a lipogram with tight constraints, by comparison, could allow only a sixth of such a list (Al Ross, Jr.).

(Naturally, our anti-lipogram contributors mistook Ross's point, said plainly in graf two. His "lipogram with tight constraints" was not Gadsby but a humorous composition actually using only half as many symbols as Wright did (it had no b, c, f, h, j, k, m, p, q, t, u, v, x, y, or z), thus admitting only a sixth of Brown Corpus words. But why ask what I or Ross was saying, if you can just adjust it into what I wasn't saying?)

Anyway, I'm throwing my hat back in. But as always, according to Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth#Cutting through all this logjam?, I will work at improving this topic as my only aim. JJB 08:19, 2010-09-25 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, naturally, as to that strawman about lipogrammaticists not wanting to talk in lipograms whilst arguing in favor of lipograms, I was showing its invalidity from my first visit to this topic. JJB 08:23, 2010-09-25 (UTC)

I wish you luck. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, actually what I say is "God go with you." JJB 13:38, 2010-09-25

It's not gonna happen. We already had a big, long, drawn-out discussion which resolved in favor of keeping the article with the e's in. No new arguments have arisen since then, so the old consensus is still valid. That we "antis" aren't improving the article does not mean that our arguments are invalidated, or that pro-lipogram editors can edit the article in ways that will make it look (to us) worse. Still, if you or anyone can honestly improve the readability and informativeness of the article, whether it means taking out e's or not, I'm not going to stand in your way. —Soap— 11:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm glad your watchlists work so smashingly! But you missay history, my good Soap. At Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth#Archiving and Summary I show that from our first poll to our last, sixty months, a majority was in favor of lipogram. But WP:CON was thrown out by you minority contributors in a small coup and I sat back to watch what you guys would do. My suppositions fully valid, I can now go on with my job of trimming untruths, improving flow (what a horrid outlining job), and building out bios of Gadsby's individuals, as you watch narrowly. JJB 13:25, 2010-09-25 (UTC)

What happened from my perspective was this. I came to this article in response to an RfC. It that time the article was fully lipogrammatical with no e's in anywhere in the article, including infobox, links, and references. There were some editors who wanted to change this and some who wanted to keep it as it was.

I proposed a compromise, which appeared to me to be acceptable to all, certainly to a majority, and which I believe became the consensus view. This was to have the main text body as a lipogram but to allow the forbidden letter in the infobox, links, and references. I worked with a number of editors to change the article to the compromise version.

Once the compromise version had been completed, to my great surprise, some editors forgot the consensus that I had helped to achieve and, pushed for removal on the lipogram from the main text (except for a small sample). Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Gratuitous use of "the"? Really?

JJB, I don't see how you have the nerve to question my insertion of the to complete a common turn of phrase after the years of shenanigans you've pulled on this talk page and in the article itself. To suggest that turning the phrase "his stagnating town" into "the stagnating town" is gratuitous is a clear violation of AGF and to continue to imply that I had ulterior motives behind the change is clearly confrontational. To revert the change could be considered tendentious editing. For you to make the painfully obvious, lipogramatic changes you made and then dare to call into question an edit I made that is completely in-line with standard English is beyond the pall. I am reverting your edit as a clear case of tendentious editing against consensus. I'd appreciate an apology for the insinuations made about me but I probably won't get it. Padillah (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring it to talk, but now you did. Your implication, that changing "his" was improving things, was built upon your claim that Gadsby didn't own Branton Hills. But Wright still says it was "his town", so your point is fully moot. So I am improving it back to what sourcing says. Now you claim or imply that you must undo to fill out a common turn of phrasing. (You also claim WP:CON, which I had shown was fully ambiguous if not sixty-forty in my favor.) Your implication that common phrasing trumps sourcing conformity, and your switch-up from this rationalization to that, do not play towards showing good faith. So I ask you, still in good faith, how can a contributor find out which word is to go in, or what third option I should bring up? JJB 18:26, 2010-09-27 (UTC) Now your first undo, which I didn't catch, as to cutting "townsfolk" in favor of your word, similarly claims to work toward improving this topic. For you to say a book "having" townsfolk is odd is a bit on-point. But this is plot summary, so Gadsby as a book should not show up at all (if not brought up in narration), and a fix would cut that wholly, as: "Many townsfolk marry during Gadsby's mayoralty". JJB 18:48, 2010-09-27 (UTC)

Padillah, I wonder if you would have reverted had the text not contained the letter 'e'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are jesting? To use the book as source for your statement is, to me, proof that you are simply trying to hedge the article back to it's lipogramatical state. You must realize that, given the context and constraints of his book Wright could not have possibly called it "The town" since the book was written as a lipogram excluding the letter "e". To suggest that Wright's reference to the town as "his" is an unbiased reference is ludicrous and easily transparent. Your claim that WP:CON doesn't fit is moderately valid but also rendered negligible by the fat that this argument has been had and the outcome very much in the "record books". You can call it what you want, the lipogram has been debated and struck down - editing to return to it would clearly be considered tendentious. I'm not "switching" rationalizations, I'm making two arguments. My argument against the edit is that the phrase "his town" is almost exclusively reserved for theoretical possession (as in criminals claiming this is "their town"). The other being, Wright was unable to use the phrase "the town" due to restrictions we don't have in place. This has been discussed and bandied back and forth - there is no support for editing this article as a lippogram and, as such, certain leeway must be given with regards to primary source material. If you are arguing that Wright obviously meant to have Gadsby own Brandon Hills then I need to reread the material. Or are you suggesting that Gadsby took control of Brandon Hills in such a domineering manner that others had no say? Or were you quoting from the book and thus preserving the syntax? As for the apology for the personal attack, I didn't think you'd provide one.

As for the "townsfolk marrying" I don't see any reason why they need be referred to as townsfolk and not simply "people" or, even better since they are not real, "characters". Padillah (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I take offense at that accusation. Are ou two trying to commit NPA attacks on me today? What is going on?

• I didn't change the section title back.
• I didn't change "portrays many of Branton Hills' 60,000 residents" back.
• I didn't change "Gadsby" back to "the story"
• I didn't change "two boys and two girls" back to "four children"

... the list goes on. How DARE you accuse me of something it's fairly clear is being done by JJB. The changes he is contending do not improve the article, that's why I changed the back. The ones that did improve the article (like removing the "west-of-the-Mississippi River" stuff) I left. Please don't make me report this treatment to WQA or simply get an admin to put you both off the article. I am putting this warning to you both - if either of you even comes close to impugning my character one more time I will take this straight to DR and the Personal Attacks will stop. I have never shown anything but a willingness to work together. If that's not your attitude then please, leave the article in peace and find another hobby. But do not come here and question my good faith again. Good day, sir. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Must I now look up "his" in my dictionary to show you that owning things is not its only connotation? Any dictionary can clarify to you that "his" has broad application to any situation involving "him". Do you actually think that your undo so obviously trumps Wright's idiom that it is worth arguing about? If you insist, you should go about providing a citation (AS I DID) for your original datum that "his" has limitations only to criminality, control, domination and such. As to point two, "townsfolk" is a particular word and your word is not, and using particulars usually counts as good writing, and using too-broad words adds nothing; plus, in a plot summary, it's not important to say at all turns that your plot is fictional (that's why you call it "plot summary"). Now, if you truly want to stick to improving this topic, I'll happily play along without accusations of bad-faith. But WP:DUCK might still apply. JJB 21:14, 2010-09-27 (UTC) And didn't you just say authors' original idioms virtually always trump summarizing by wiki contributors, with as much sound and fury as you now say what is wholly contrary to that? Didn't you say "Your POV is showing"? Didn't you call out a co-contributor as "not good at communicating" and "notably lacking" in grammar skills? Duck! JJB 21:26, 2010-09-27 (UTC)

So is that what you are claiming? That this is a quote? Then shouldn't it be enclosed in quotation marks? Because that's what the topic of the discussion you cited was - whether to use an original quote from the author or not. I believe your argument was to not use it because you were trying to maintain a lipograpm in the article and this particular quote didn't adhere to that constraint. Again, I must say, your POV is showing. As for the use of "his" you are more than welcome to look it up (we are on the Internet after all) but I don't think you'll want to. It's called a possessive form for a reason. In most any connotation I can think of it's application to "him" is pretty much relegated to the possessive form, but you have fun. Yes, unless you are trying to insinuate a quote in the article (which is fine, just put it in quotation marks), I think the article should be phrased from the point of view of an overview article. Not a rehashing of the book. Wright had every right to use that form of the attributive, it's his book he can do as he wants. For us to use that form would be out of context and would imply a different meaning, colloquially or concretely, to the use. You are astute, that is exactly my argument.

As for "townsfolk" vs. "characters" please re-read my post and you will see I initially recommended simply calling them "people". Are you suggesting there is a need to distinguish the townsfolk getting married from others in the book that get married? I could see that as a valid argument... if there were any other people in the book but those from the town. So in this context "people" and "townsfolk" cover exactly the same population and can be neither more broad nor more restrictive than the other. As a more modern, colloquial manner of communicating, I prefer "people". I will also try to AGF and assume that your accusations of bad grammar and lack of communication skills were simply the product of not know what a possessive attributive is for. Padillah (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I did look it up. If quotation marks will fix it for you, I'll put in quotation marks. Your position, that Wright's phrasing of "his town" is confusing to visitors to whom might it might imply owning, and that it would not signify in WP in a plot summary what it did in Gadsby, is radically nitpicky, if you don't mind my saying so. On point two, Gadsby's anonymous narrator is not a townsman, so your word is broad. But this is ridiculous how much work you put in to say at last that this is all about your liking, and to imply that antilipogrammaticity is not on your mind at all. Finally, that was no accusation of lack of skills, that was a quotation of your accusation that I lack skills. That policy is WP:NPA. JJB 13:40, 2010-09-28 (UTC)

I never said this wasn't about my liking. Only one thing you put in (or in fact ever put in) has been incorrect, and that was the "redefining" of Intrawar through a wikilink (and I'm not entirely sure that was you). That doesn't mean I don't care about the quality of the article. And when you can show me, as you did above, how referring to people as townsfolk is better for the article, I shall acquiesce (as I shall do now, on that point). I do not understand how, after the list of lipogrammatical changes I demonstrated, you could accuse me of being anti-lipogram. Do you really think I'm just gonna let you edit the article how ever you want and not say a word? Do you think that every time I object you can claim "anti-lipogram" and get your way? I have asked you to refrain from impugning my motives. You have refused to do so. I have no recourse but to take this to WQA as the first step in the DR process. Padillah (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you. So your only difficulty is that you favor changing "his" to T, H, you-know-what, and you want to go to WQA about it? In that I was asking you to think about your undo of this solitary word possibly having a bit of casuistry and contrarianism? And you say that your not undoing an additional list of (four of) my wordings shows your good faith? And my quotation of your accusation in our prior discussion is not topical? Okay. Anyway, as I said, as long as our paradigm is to stick with improving this topic, I'll play along. JJB 17:41, 2010-09-28 (UTC)

No, the several Personal Attacks are the reason I want to take this to WQA. You have the nerve to come to this article with a POV a mile-wide and accuse me of reverting because you classify me as "anti-lipogram"? Yes, I expect you to take my work at face value. I expect you to look at the fact that I left 70% of your changes in tact should speak directly to my motives. The fact that I have not reverted edits like this one that explicitly states it is to "Removed excess 'e's" should indicate to you that I am not wholly obsessed with being anti-lipogram. Not to mention this and this. If you want to cry "Duck" I'd like to present these cases as nothing more than you editing anonymously to avoid accusations of tendentious editing. I ask you, would you settle for anything less than wholly reverting this article into a lipogram? Face it, you have done nothing but demonstrate to me your lack of willingness to work together to improve the article. You have shown nothing but POV at every turn (you can't even post on the talk page without fairly bellowing it "T.H. you-know-what" Seriously?). You tell me how I am supposed to trust your blatant and obvious POV but you are allowed to impugn my motives after the mound of evidence that's readily available in the article history (if only you'd look)? Padillah (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny. That contributor's nonthorough adjusting and wimpy summary styling is just not my idiom, so WP:DUCK would fail. If you do scan all diffs in this history (I did), you would know that I did say I would work toward compromising on inclusions as soon as anybody would list particular flaws in my wording for discussion (Phoínixrod did so, and I built a good rapport with him; that can occur again). You would also know that what you say now is not what you said many moons ago in that mound. And "T, H, you-know-what" is just my iconoclastic way of making light of how small your focus is on this. But look, you want an apology, you got all wrought up only by my saying, "Padillah, that is thoroughly gratuitous. Wright says 'his town is backward' (part 1), and so on. You should think about if you did this toward improving things, or out of casuistry and contrarianism." That is a point consonant with your undo having such tiny focus. You spun that solitary word into thousands of words of discussion now, for what, and you still say that my simply calling it gratuitous if it is (I'll grab that dictionary again: having no warrant; not circumstantially fitting), and my saying that commonality of idiom is possibly not your only motivation, is an NPA or WQA violation forcing an apology? That board can do its own figuring on that. JJB 20:03, 2010-09-28 (UTC)

You still fail to acknowledge the insult of assuming BAD FAITH both you and Martin have put towards me. If you insist on misunderstanding my umbrage then I can do no more than take this to someone that will listen. Your failure to even come close to understanding what I am upset about is almost more egregious than the insults themselves. Make this about the word "the" if you feel it distracts from the personal attacks you have waged. Padillah (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. "contraianism" isn't a word. I believe you mean "contrariness". "Contrarian" is a person that takes a contrary view point. The suffix "-ism" is to act like or act in the manner of. So your sentence above is saying I am doing this out a a desire to act like someone that holds a contrary view point. When in fact you mean, I am only doing this because I hold a contrary view point. Not quite the same thing, but translation is the only way to communicate with you. Padillah (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith; I'm moving forward; and, no, "contraianism" isn't a word. JJB 20:03, 2010-09-29 (UTC)

The diffs are at WQA if you feel like looking. The edit summary of your revert that started this whole thing is an assumption in bad faith and the rest of this talk topic is a continuation of that assumption. I'm currently in the process of determining how to edit this page if you are going to be involved. The fact that I have to seek counsel rather than simply have a straight-forward discussion with you should be an indication of how disruptive you are, but I'll leave that discovery up to you. Padillah (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Synonymy

Padillah, my good man, you just cut two additional words and put in basic synonyms. Naturally my thought, of working only toward improving things, did not account for a situation in which a contributor wants to carry out a string of dialogs arguing that this synonym is most fitting and that synonym isn't, as such a diff is a vanishingly small by-product of such mountains of words (cf. ridiculus mus). But, so as to stick to good faith, I should only point out that: (a) Padillah's output at talk significantly and continuously outstrips his topic contribution output; (b) Arguing about synonymy is a significantly small subgroup of improving phrasing; (c) Padillah is switching from a prior position in favor of Wright's phrasing to a position against it (Wright says "mayoralty"); (d) Padillah is changing additional words but, in his last undo, was implying that his not changing any additional words was significant; and, most important, (... oh, look at that, I'm out of points). Anyway, any judging of such facts is not my ambit now. I will fix Padillah's undoing as it warrants. JJB 19:14, 2010-09-30 (UTC)

a)My output on the talk page has nothing what-so-ever to do with my contributions to the article. That you would misuse this statistic in an ad hominem attack is no real surprise to me. b) I can't see how improving the wording of a text article can be construed as "significantly small" but I'm sure you have different measurements than I do. c) I have never changed my position on any of the points above. What I said was the article benefits more from a quote than from your OR of the intent of that quote. But since that doesn't currently fit your needs you are more than welcome to misconstrue my position as much as you see fit. d) Again, you have the option of taking any argument you want out of context. It doesn't surprise me at all that you are continuing to ignore the words I type... it's probably the 'e's. Any "fix" you implement will be judged by me and argued to it's clarity in conveying the appropriate information in the article. Any argument I can't clearly understand will be declared moot and ignored. I refuse to entertain you any longer. You are being disruptive and tendentious and I do not have to put up with it any longer. Padillah (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)