Talk:The Headmaster (short story): Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce m (Talk:The Headmaster moved to Talk:The Headmaster (short story): to prevent future confusion when other "headmaster" references and/or articles are created) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (I feel chastized about the chaste style, hehe, and I'm not even a monk. I'll take care of it and the neutrality) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I think this should live at [[The Headmaster (short story)]]. Here is why. If we title the article "The Headmaster," those who are ''familiar with'' our conventions will immediately see that the article is not about headmasters in general (''unless'' someone has mistitled the article). But then, we cannot see what it ''is'' about, from the title, and this is especially because we can easily anticipate other things, like films, novels, pubs, and so forth, called "The Headmaster." Besides, even if this were the only thing article-worthy that could be called "The Headmaster," it would help both readers and contributors to have the disambiguating phrase within the title itself. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:28, 5 May 2008 (CDT) | I think this should live at [[The Headmaster (short story)]]. Here is why. If we title the article "The Headmaster," those who are ''familiar with'' our conventions will immediately see that the article is not about headmasters in general (''unless'' someone has mistitled the article). But then, we cannot see what it ''is'' about, from the title, and this is especially because we can easily anticipate other things, like films, novels, pubs, and so forth, called "The Headmaster." Besides, even if this were the only thing article-worthy that could be called "The Headmaster," it would help both readers and contributors to have the disambiguating phrase within the title itself. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:28, 5 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
:Yes, I've done this, as suggested. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 12:02, 5 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Re "spare, chaste style"--I have no idea what a chaste style would be. Whose style is particularly randy? :-) Also, as to the comment at the end of the article, assessing the story: is that the common view of the story? I don't quite see how this can be squared with [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]]. I mean, sure it is useful information to have such evaluations; I wouldn't be against all sorts of evaluative language of that sort. But on first glance it looks like one man's opinion (in this particular case). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:33, 7 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
:You're right, of course, on both counts -- I'll make changes. I didn't know how far I could push my evaluation -- certainly CZ apparently allows us a lot more latitude than the monomaniacs at WP.... I'll take care of it tomorrow, after I try to do a couple of little Write-a-Thon thingees.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:09, 7 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:09, 7 May 2008
I think this should live at The Headmaster (short story). Here is why. If we title the article "The Headmaster," those who are familiar with our conventions will immediately see that the article is not about headmasters in general (unless someone has mistitled the article). But then, we cannot see what it is about, from the title, and this is especially because we can easily anticipate other things, like films, novels, pubs, and so forth, called "The Headmaster." Besides, even if this were the only thing article-worthy that could be called "The Headmaster," it would help both readers and contributors to have the disambiguating phrase within the title itself. --Larry Sanger 10:28, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
- Yes, I've done this, as suggested. Hayford Peirce 12:02, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
Re "spare, chaste style"--I have no idea what a chaste style would be. Whose style is particularly randy? :-) Also, as to the comment at the end of the article, assessing the story: is that the common view of the story? I don't quite see how this can be squared with CZ:Neutrality Policy. I mean, sure it is useful information to have such evaluations; I wouldn't be against all sorts of evaluative language of that sort. But on first glance it looks like one man's opinion (in this particular case). --Larry Sanger 14:33, 7 May 2008 (CDT)
- You're right, of course, on both counts -- I'll make changes. I didn't know how far I could push my evaluation -- certainly CZ apparently allows us a lot more latitude than the monomaniacs at WP.... I'll take care of it tomorrow, after I try to do a couple of little Write-a-Thon thingees.... Hayford Peirce 15:09, 7 May 2008 (CDT)