Jump to content

Talk:The Ugly Little Boy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed spoiler warning

[edit]

The guideline states:

  • Spoiler warnings are redundant when used in "Plot", "Character history", "Synopsis", or other sections that are self-evidently going to discuss a plot or similar.

Therefore, the warning is redundant as used in this article, according to the guideline. Vassyana 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I have altered the text in order to have it correlate with the new guideline. Anyhow, it is now more uniform and fluent and is also justified for use with the spoiler warning. Furthermore, the guideline is disputed and is ultimately only a guideline so any editor could always have the last word (The latter is not applicable in this case though.) Chris Buttigieg 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's just say the guideline isn't as disputed as you might have heard. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you say, yes. --Kizor 23:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the substantive question, yes obviously Vassyana's right. An extra warning is not only somewhat ugly, it's superfluous --Tony Sidaway
In that case it is alright; I was misguided by prior guidlines. The guidelines in question have changed haven't they? All I have heard so far is that they are 'disputed'. Chris Buttigiegtalk 06:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are still in dispute, and as such, should not be appealed to. I find your argument for including spoiler warnings satisfactory, and, unless you now personally disagree with their necessity, would suggest you add it back, as consensus does not exist to remove it. However, whether you agree or not, unlike Tony, instead of simply claiming my opinion is superior or that there is no debate, I invite you to join Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, to help form consensus on this issue. Wandering Ghost 11:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply incorrect to state that the new guideline is in dispute. 45,000 articles have had their spoiler tags removed, and there are hardly any being restored. I have contributed extensively to Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and it's extremely disingenuous to state that the guideline does not apply or to imply that I've failed to discuss it. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is in dispute. It is in fact, marked as frozen until disputes can be resolved (while noting that the frozen state can not be construed as an endorsement of the current policy). This, and the problems with your 'argument by status quo' has been explained to you many times. Continuing to assert the authority of the guideline to make sure nobody reverses any spoiler warnings, and then using the fact that nobody reverses spoiler warnings to claim the guideline is not in dispute is what's disingenuous, so please stop doing it. If you wish to make edits that remove spoilers, argue them on their own merits without reference to WP: Spoiler.Wandering Ghost 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been misled. Editing is frozen until disputes are resolved, to stop editors edit warring over the placing of a silly tag on a guideline about the placing of a tag. The fact is that four or five weeks ago we had spoiler tags on some 45,000 articles and now we've got a very few. That this happened with hardly any complaint is such a thumping endorsement of the new guideline that a few people complaining on the talk page means very little. the merits have been argued and are readily apparent: a more professional encyclopedia that doesn't kowtow to the obsessions of fandom. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is you shouldn't claim to be reverting based on WP: Spoiler because nobody can determine, while editing is frozen and the page clearly says that it is not an endorsement of its current state, what the policy is. If you're wrong (which of course, you refuse to accept the possibility of), you've just given them the wrong idea under the banner of authority. And your argument about the lack of reversions proving anything is bunk. This has been explained several times. Interested parties please go to Wikipedia talk:Spoiler for the many arguments against this, and the many valid questions about his position that have yet to be answered. But I'll ask again: If you truly believe your guideline has a 'thumping endorsement', you should have no problem with ceasing to go around and eliminate spoiler tags when people add them back. Because if you don't do it, someone else obviously will, if there's consensus, rather than a few people removing the tags. If there's not consensus, you need to keep hammering your point home. So, what do you say, are you going to give it a rest and prove you have consensus? Wandering Ghost 02:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Spoiler is a guideline. It has broad, nay vast acceptance among Wikipedia editors. That you don't like it isn't an issue. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again you avoid the question with a false appeal to authority. We don't know how vast the acceptance is. It's in dispute. It's only been around in this form for about a month. But if it's really so vast, again, you don't personally need to be enforcing it, do you? If it's so vast, why aren't the editors who watch articles normally doing your job for you? Wandering Ghost 02:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying I'm appealing to authority. Absolutely not. Wikipedia runs on consensus. The document I cite is a guideline, formed by consensus. You keep saying "you don't personally need to enforce it", well not I don't. What of it? You don't personally need to be opposing it. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you've yet to prove consensus. So, because you use the guideline (which is still marked in dispute, last I checked), you are appealing to authority of the guideline. You're assert consensus exists, because consensus is authority. It's a false appeal because you've yet to demonstrate it except through a circular argument. You're still dodging. I do need to oppose it because from my perspective, you're subverting the ability to find consensus. Unlike you, I'm actually willing to accept the possibility that I might be wrong on consensus, which is why I've offered a number of times the compromise where you should feel free to edit the articles that you normally read and use if you feel there are inappropriate spoilers, but not seek out spoilers to stomp, and let the articles take care of themselves by local consensus. But because you seem unwilling to play fair, I've taken a more active approach. Wandering Ghost 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is proven. The guideline is not marked "in dispute". It has a normal protection tag due to an edit war. What you seem to be saying is that I should not edit articles according to a guideline because in your opinion there is no consensus for the guideline. This doesn't seem particularly sensible to me. You can't ask someone to stop making perfectly legitimate edits to improve Wikipedia, and expect him to agree. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying consensus is proven doesn't make it so. The protected tag specifically says that one should not assume that the current version is the official one, so whether it's marked in dispute or not is irrelevant. The fact is, people can't tell whether it's in dispute or what the guidelines are at the moment without a detailed read of the whole debate. So you should stop using the page as an edit justification. I have given you a simple way to help demonstrate that the guideline really does have consensus as you have so often claimed, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that there's even a dispute, so really, what's the point of wasting my energy on the discussion? So, I'm closing up this line of discussion here. I'll continue behaving as I feel right, and I once again invite anyone who happens to be reading this discussion to discuss their feelings on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, whether they are for or against spoilers. I do not fear honest debate that might prove me wrong. I furthur suggest that even if they do not wish to join the debate themselves, again, whichever side of the discussion they fall on, to spread the fact that there is a discussion of the guideline going on. Wandering Ghost 03:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated to death. Wikipedia has decided: feel free to put a spoiler tag in an article about a fictional subject, but do expect to have to justify it. And it works. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I'm not sure the image shown really belongs with this article. The only connection is that the story the article is about and the image are both artistic portrayals of Neanderthal children. 69.95.232.3 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I remembre I watched this tale on night gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.124.41 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor wording

[edit]

The lead now says "Like most of his works the story centres on science fiction and other fiction based on futuristic science." Does this mean anything other than "like most of his work this story is science fiction." A sorty that "centres on science fiction" would suggest to me that the story is actually about writing, or perhaps SF conventions or some such, something like Bimbos of the Death Sun or Asimov's own Murder at the ABA. 151.204.65.200 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article focus

[edit]

The current article does not differentiate between the plot and substance of the original short story and that of the later novel. There are significant differences which should be discussed and perhaps contrasted. Two different articles might be appropriate. GwenW (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible factual error

[edit]

In Introduction to his Robot Visions, Isaac Asimov states that it is his second favorite story. It can be seen on http://www.litru.ru/?book=90126&page=2 (only a part of Introduction) or http://onlineknigi.com/catalog/file/13458. Kralj01 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-authors

[edit]

Did Silverberg work with Asimov on the 1991/1992 novel? Or merely "novelize" the 1958/1959 story with Asimov's blessing? (1959 and 1992 were second editions entitled "The Ugly Little Boy", iirc ISFDB) --P64 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my annotation and comment at Robert Silverberg, where the collaboration needs attention
--P64 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Ugly_Little_Boy&oldid=1200238815"