Talk:Gadsby (novel)

vote regarding lipogram

Is it strictly obligatory that this composition is a lipogram??? It's funny at first, but it's obvious that such things shouldn't stay on this wiki.

I think it's great!!! Nice work!!! Gkhan 11:28, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's almost a lipogram, thanks to including Ernest Vincent and the letter 'e'. But I must say this is a minor fault. I also must say that this paragraph I just put on this Wiki is a lipogram, if you don't count what I put this way. — JIP | Talk 09:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to exclude the letter E. We are detailing a book. Not following a style from the book. Taylor 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Live a little. It's just a subtle clever joke that does nobody any harm. Jigglyman 21:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And frankly, I didn't even notice that it was a lipogram until reading this page... richdiesal 20:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, doubly so. I suspected something was up when the article called a typewriter a 'typing contraption'. Heh. Keep up the good work! --T-Boy 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, once again. Clever and amusing for those who catch it; There's obviously no need for it, but unless someone plans on typing up a better, more informative article, what's the point in changing it? Telesque 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm. I don't mind it, although it's probably not strictly in accord with WP policy. But I do think "Links Not In Wiki" is too conspicuously clumsy, and it's OK to apply our lipogram to just 'body' writing, and not to such captions. Robin Johnson 16:49, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to the somewhat inaccurate "citations". Superm401 | Talk 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This should be moved to Gadsby (book). Novel has an e.--Cuchullain 06:00, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, keep it a lipogram. I didn't even notice! Nice work!!! Tempshill 19:49, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Not that I think that the issue is relevant anymore. --Kizor 19:16, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Voting for. I'm a fan of this approach. As a book that has utility strictly as a lipogram of significant girth, our writing stands to gain from not using such glyphs as lack in Gadsby. This would work to show its particular quality. Such portrayal would not wildly malign official policy, in my opinion. It is indubitably a fact that WP imparts much information, particularly math and physics, in ways that limit casual visitors' ability to absorb it, owing not only to difficult topics but also to using particular wordings and symbols. Why may not this composition contain a lipogram, so long as it truly imparts what our contributors can say? Is this lack of a particular symbol, or such wording as follows from this, such a bad hack that our contribution automatically has to qualify as substandard? Is it not akin to what I said about math and physics: applying a form common to this topic? That it also has artistic quality and honors Gadsby as a work of art should not, I think, disqualify this motion. Also, coming contributors can add to our work without following any lipographic notation; wordsmiths that want to polish our writing may do so if no information is lost this way. A bit of sophistication in carrying it out can also avoid a too rigid form, by not just choosing synonyms but using variant layouts, paraphrasing and colorful composition. This is not to say that visitors should find it hard to grasp it, only that it can qualify both as a lipogram and as a fitting composition for this collaboration. Zuiram 09:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting for. I support lipogrammaticity. Kudos to Zuiram, its champion. I know of no ban on "fun" nor any policy against it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your laudation. As a majority is for this approach, I will try to find a wording for this composition that will maintain its clarity without straying from such constraints as laid down in my proposal. If I can do it, it will call for painstaking caution and many hours of work, I think, so do not count on having it on hand soon. My postings on this topic lack such quality as would avoid provoking disapproving contributors; a good wording calls for additional work, as this writing is non-trivial. Obviously, names and links will not follow such constraints as apply to its body, as this would impair visitors' ability to fully grasp it without difficulty. This also allows showing which glyph is not used in Gadsby. Any contributors that wish to aid in this composition can contact me via my account. Zuiram 07:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ I don't think I've ever heard something so goddamn retarded in my entire life. Someone please rewrite this piece of shit article. Holy hell. Czoller (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconded This is an encyclopedia, not a themed coloring book. 24.230.44.102 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 24.23.44.102 (talk • contribs) has had only two contributions not on this topic. I think this IP is a sock of Czoll, looking at timing, additional possibly sockish activity, WP:DUCK, and Czoll's dropping off wiki on 25 July. JJB 17:01, 3 Oct 2008 (UTC)

Thirded Wikipedia is not the venue for people to showcase their skills. There's no explicit ban on "fun" because that's already covered under the principle that content should be encyclopedic in nature. Tzinacan (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote in favor As long as the article's readability is not seriously compromised (and I don't think it has been), I think doing the article in this manner is not merely amusing; it nicely illustrates what the lipogrammatic writing in the novel is like, for those not familiar with the concept. Also: I think the gratuitous insults of some of the anti votes are completely uncalled-for. Remain civil, please. Qaqaq (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly favoring: What with contributors waking up again in this part of our discussion, I thought I should formally avow my strong advocacy for maintaining a lipogram too. I am also happy to discuss any conflict solution in a distinct part of talk. I do think a goodly majority favors this approach, as I just said, downwards a bit. JJB 18:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly and civilly opposing the lipogrammatical version: Crikey, I had no idea I was stepping into such a minefield. As amusing as the lipogram is to some, it strikes me as an irritating affectation. Circumlocution counters the idea of an accessible encyclopedia. Why not instead host a lipgrammatical version on one's user (sub-)page, or on a place like Uncyclopedia? To my mind, the key point in deciding is this: what do our readers expect, want, and need? I think it is fair for readers to expect a readable article that makes its point succinctly. Tying one arm behind one's back in a boxing match is a feat of skill, but it does not make for an efficient win. I don't particularly want to debate the issue further. But may I suggest a more central/neutral location for discussion, perhaps on a dispute resolution page? Given my assumption that readers' needs come first, it is logical to involve editors who don't edit this article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In favor of lipogram. I did notice the lipogrammicity after a few minutes or so, but thought that the readability and informativeness of the article was in no way sacrificed. The very fact that quite a few here did not notice the conceit until checking the discussion shows that efficiency was not abrogated here.

In favor of lipogram. The lipogram should definitely be broken if it is causing a problem to the article. But this should be a readability problem, not the problem of its simple existence. If there are specific phrases that are not clear, let's work to fix them (and break the lipogram rule if it's really necessary). But the circumlocution here strikes me as pretty straightforward, especially considering the kinds of users who are likely to be reading an article like this one. JTFK (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble reading the article. Maybe I'm just dumb? Can you make it read like ENglish please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.245.74 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In favor of lipogram. I enjoyed the slow realization that the article itself was a lipogram omitting 'e'. Kudos to whomever did all that fine work! 67.142.130.20 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In favor of lipogram. Just because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, doesn't mean that it should be boring. Get a life, and have some fun. AustinBH (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Opposing lipogram. I enjoy a bit a whimsy as much as the next guy. However, I have one major problem with the article in its current lipogram form: Describing the novel as an "Anglic-group lipogram" is as close as it ever comes to accurately stating that the novel omits the letter e. If you can't come up with a sensible way to describe the novel's most notable feature while staying within the restrictions of your word game, then it's time to give up that game. --Cornprone (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but did you look at all of it? It says plainly that Gadsby's vocabulary list skips from d to f. A discussion is ongoing about if this is worthy of first-paragraph status or not. JJB 14:02, 24 Oct 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've pointed it out, I see the "d to f" statement. I guess I didn't notice that due to the article being extremely difficult to parse. I think, at the very least, this should be made clearer in the introductory paragraph. --Cornprone (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial count

For nitpicks, totals by my rough count: 48 favoring, 33 (including vandals; plus four probably socks) against. A goodly majority of all chiming in favor a lipogram.

Favoring: (From history:) Wikifun's original author; Mindspill; Lupo; Dysprosia; Koavf; this contributor; Lubaf; Pakaran; Dyna; this undo; 401; 4.154.7.99; 65.190.164.211; No Parking; Dpbsmith; 209.2.60.97; Dogbox; 206.230.48.34; 12.47.208.34; Florian B; 67.160.208.249; 67.86.0.32; (From talk:) 81.134.54.129 (it's probably sarcasm to say in full, "Is it strictly obligatory that this composition is a lipogram??? It's funny at first, but it's obvious that such things shouldn't stay on this wiki."); How; 118.136.59.137; -ling; Gkhan; JIP; Jigglyman; rich; T-Boy; Cuchullain; shill; Kizor; Zuiram; Dpbsmith; JJB; Qaqaq; 71.191.44.93; 86.68.123.166; Xyz; Ô.ô wow ô.ô; JTFK; 67.142.130.20; AustinBH; Zzo38; Orv; Synchronism.

Against: (From history:) Arj; 4.246.3.155; 159.91.116.185; Andy; stuart; Kizor; 81.153.91.187; a guy from our fiction workgroup; this "uncool" contrib; Irishguy; this undo; Robin Johnson; 83.199.82.153; 24.230.44.102*; Czoll*; 83.204.177.74; rod; Soap; Jond*; 76.21.247.127* (backing up to Czoll's wording); Q Binary; 80.202.174.246; 86.163.107.149; 71.55.100.21; 128.227.53.230; 99.194.68.155; (From talk:) Tzinacan; Ilyan; Cotton; 219.90.139.250; 128.250.204.118; Taylor; Connor H; Yngvarr; 134.48.245.74; CrashGordon94; Corn. *Probably socks (WP:DUCK).

Unknown (didn't talk about lipogrammaticity, possibly without noticing): 193.252.1.200; 82.3.32.73; Bibliomaniac15; Bwiki; Bfinn; curtain3; math; 66.9.172.83; Axman89; 68.44.28.9; 128.250.204.118; 63.144.166.5; Aaronbrick; 24.165.10.21; 70.231.240.95; 72.95.179.114; many additional. JJB 10:33, 20 Oct 2008 (UTC)

JJB, I think this section of the talk page is highly unproductive. Furthermore, accusing editors of being sockpuppets is, at the very least, problematic—and certainly a violation of WP:AGF if you have no evidence of deceptive intent. It is quite possible that the camps you dub "favoring" and "against" have socks, but you are only leveling unfounded accusations at those who apparently disagree with you. Do you honestly find this "unofficial count" important? It certainly doesn't do much to demonstrate a consensus. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Two things: see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and 2005 on Wikipedia was a lot different than 2008 on Wikipedia. Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sales

Did the book sell any copies after its publication? Sales data and a contemporaneous review would be nice. Tempshill 19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lipogram removed

It was fun while it lasted, but I just edited the article to remove the lipogram, for various reasons:

• it isn't a very encyclopedic thing to do, and certainly not in keeping with house style;
• there have already been the beginnings of edit wars in this article;
• it was responsible for some serious ugliness in the article, and Plain English is a good thing;
• the more information that gets put in to the article, the harder it will be to write, and we don't want to discourage expansion of the article.

If people want to see an example of a lipogram, they can follow the link to the novel itself. Robin Johnson 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Information should be communicated in an interesting way! I think it added significantly to the article that it wa a lipogram (seriously), as it illustrated the concept. The fact that it had a slightly different style that the rest of Wikipedia is no big deal. I say, bring it back. Thue | talk 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave it delipogrammed because that seriously made the article very ungramatical. This is an encyclopedia, not a farmer's almanac (or whatever...it's 11:25 PM right now) — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted a revert by User:No Parking to attempt to get the lipogram in (which left 'typewriter' and 'accidentally' and 'key' in anyway.) I won't do this again myself, but please let's discuss it here before making this major change again. Robin Johnson 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of this work?

Can anyone confirm, or even point to some evidence that suggests, that this work is in the public domain now? If it is, I'd like to add it to Project Gutenberg. It definitely doesn't qualify under the "easy" public domain rule (meaning it was published after 1923), so the only chance is that the copyright lapsed before the rules were re-written in the Seventies. Anyone know for certain?

I can even provide a lead - Douglas Hofstadter excerpted sections of Gadsby in his 2004 book, "Le Ton beau de Marot", and I checked the "Acknowledgements" section in the back and there were no mention of copyright holders or permission. If the book was still under copyright, Hofstadter and Basic Books would've had to credit somebody, right? Just a thought...

Just because someone else is doing it usually isn't a good reason ;) — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of Gadsby - actually a photocopy of the original edition, made for me by Cambridge University Library - and can confirm it is out of copyright, or at least was when they made the copy for me (in c.1991) - can't recall if the copyright period changed after then. It has the publication date in it so I'll look it up when I get a chance. Ben Finn 14:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lipograms Redux

I think it is rather sad that we cannot have a lippogrammatical version of this article. I don't think such a constraint necessarily means losing a great deal of clarity - and if this can be agreed upon, then it is rather humbug to force more vowels onto us. If the Ancient Hebrews did not need vowels (well, sort of), then I think we can do without the much-overrated epsilon.

Anyway, here is my attempt at it (copied-and-pasted from the main page, 23/10/06, and not without immense debts to the previous attempts):

GADSBY is a book by Ernest Vincent Wright, "A Story of Over 50,000 Words" dating from around 1939. It is famous for not using any word with an 'e' in it. Wright's book is a lipogram and (arguably) the most popularly-known occasion of an unusual sylistic constraint. Nor was this particular handicap without difficulty for Gadsby's author, who admits in his introduction to sticking down parts of his old Smith-Corona whilst typing it, so to avoid having any of his lipagrammatoi (or missing symbols) "slip in" to his writing - though still "many did try to do so!"

Synopsis

Gadsby's plot is an account of how its protagonist, John Gadsby, transforms his local town of Branton Hills into a bustling city by tapping into his own youthful vigour and capacity for original thought. Quoting from its first paragraph:

"If youth, throughout all history, had a champion to stand up for it; to show a doubting world that a child can think; and, possibly, do it practically; you wouldn't constantly run across folks today who claim that "a child don't know anything." A child's brain starts functioning at birth; and has, amongst its many infant convolutions, thousands of dormant atoms, into which God has put a mystic possibility for noticing an adult's act, and figuring out its purport."

(This combination of odd punctuation, tortuous grammar, and arguably disjoint air carry on throughout). In addition to having to avoid common words (and particularly pronouns), Wright adds complications to his task by writing of the (uncontinuous) past, whilst also having to avoid constructions such as '-ed' and '-ve'; finally taking a still more valiant risk by writing about things that ordinarily contain 'e', such as a "Thanksgiving National Bird" or "an astonishing loaf of culinary art"...

A popular account has Wright dying in 1966, just days prior to his book going into print; though this is uncomfirmed [NB - sounds apocryphal, add a citation if not].

Gadsby was his last work. A similarly lipogrammatic book is Georges Perec's La Disparition (1969; trans. 1994 by Gilbert Adair as 'A Void').

[Well, there you are. Is this really substantially less clear than the current version, with 'e's and all? I would be interested to hear your comments; I hope you appreciate that I did not simply change the page as I saw fit without first discussing it here.] Dogbox 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I too think we should use a Lippogrammatic version - yes, it will be slightly less clear, but it will make the article much more interesting :). Thue | talk 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Change

You know what, I'm in a daring mood tonight so I'm going to change it to the lipogrammatic version and see if anyone complains. Dogbox 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm complaining. The lipogram makes the article harder to read and much harder to maintain - both completely against the goals of Wikipedia. It's just not part of encyclopedic reporting. Robin Johnson (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is kind of cool though. Robin Johnson (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But you've missed several e's. Robin Johnson (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Where it would have been obviously ridiculous to avoid the letter 'e', like in the author's name or so on, I've left an 'e' in, of course. If you want to revert it back then I won't meddle any further. But as for encylopaedic reporting, surely 'easter eggs' appear in lots of resources like maps and so on, and its not like fiction is being presented as fact. See also http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=879. And as for maintenance: I really, really, doubt that much more will be said on the subject of Gadsby, I've never seen it in a bookshop or heard it mentioned for any reason other than its use of lipogrammatoi. And even if it is, then there's no flashing light saying "don't update this article unless you can play along with it".Dogbox 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have 'more' and a few 'the's. And 'unconfirmed', if that counts (notes like that shouldn't appear in article text anyway. Maybe I'll fix it.) Robin Johnson (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing that kind of bugs me about the lipogrammatic version is that it took me a bit to understand what the lipogram in the book is, that it avoids the letter "e". The article is certainly a triumph, but I don't think we should be sacrificing clarity for cuteness. Cherry Cotton (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Eugh. This article is an encyclopedic mess. It just feels so wrong. You can see through the revision history that the usefulness of the article has been really compromised by this lpogram silliness. 219.90.139.250 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise on article style

This article can't be a lipogram and still clearly get the message across. Those who want a lipogrammatic version should host it on a user page / project page / etc. — DIV (128.250.204.118 08:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC))
...and each can link to the other. 128.250.204.118 08:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

How unoriginal, I didn't look at talk prior to my composition. I'll look at history and add accordingly, but not right now. Favor moving to Gadsby: Champion of Youth, an original titling. 209.243.55.22 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lipogram should be restricted to article text only

Categories, edit links and whatnot are not part of the article text and should be outside the constraints of the lipogrammic exercise. For example, adding __HIDDENCAT__ to Category:Lipograms then effectively removes that category for the other articles in there, just to satisfy a desire to keep this article free of Es. Likewise, I'm restoring the TOC and section edit links here. howcheng {chat} 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This page should also be moved backed to Gadsby (novel), for this is the standard use for title, plus most links are to that title. 83.204.177.74 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't modify built-ins; WP isn't what this link points to. But still avoid all fifth orthographic glyphs that isn't built-ins, link URLs, HTML tags, and so on. Following a link will still display Gadsby (book), and it still works OK, so don't modify. --zzo38(✉) 18:31, 3 Oct. 2008 (UTC)

Why I reverted the article again

To John Bulten: Yes, I know that it was an admin who started the project of turning this article into a lipogram. I don't think that that alone means that it's valid forever and that people should be unable to object. Nevertheless I am too busy right now to bother getting into a revert war over this article and so if it means that much to you, I've made it easy for you by reverting all at once, so all you have to do is click the Undo button and you can have it back the way you like it. Since the question of whether a lipogrammatic article is valid has not yet been settled, I think that we should call in some outside judges to decide once and for all which way the article should read.

Please use this space to explain your revisions. What is the etymology of faRO? Are people expected to know who it is on sight? What about words like "conflagration" for fire? Is "two to four thousand dollars" an exact quote? Why do you sometimes create redirects such as Cat in a Hat and Vocalic, and at other times just accept the word as it is (e.g. typewriter)?

Please note, I am not saying that 100% of your edits are bad ... I can see a good argument for "fiction" as the genre instead of "novel", but I don't have the time right now to go through the entire edit history and separate the good from the bad, and I expect that there will be a future conflict over this article that will end up overwriting those edits anyway. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Soap! This minor back-and-forth has not had any actual fix that I know of, so I'm hoping you and I can find a harmony swiftly. First, naturally, our maintaining a lipogram is not forcing you or any contributors to maintain it too— just as your working toward a nonlipogram isn't forcing any of us to maintain a nonlipogram. I don't know of any contributor taking a position that taboos lipograms outright; just that maintaining such is a pain. But thinking about improving our contributions, I would hold that an almost-lipogram is worst of both worlds— comparing to both a full lipogram, and a full contribution with no trying for lipogrammaticity at all. That is also how I found this topic— as an almost-lipogram, that is, a failing. A difficult job, asking for finishing.

Judging or conflict-solving is not what this situation calls for, I think. What you and I actually want is a happy guiding paradigm: All camps must work toward improving this topic. Lipogrammaticists must truly work out conflicts point-by-point and still push quality upward, if artistic constraint is so important to us. My camp can truly point out (a) a good majority favors lipogram and (b) ignoring all rulings has a bit of applicability against naysaying (not too much, naturally); but my camp must also back off if not consciously improving it.

All points against lipogram stand on that old carp which Wright also got so oft, that a lipogram simply can't occur and still work in good idiom. (And that any lipogrammaticist is slightly kooky.) So point-by-point findings of "what is a good idiom" ought to do it, right?

(1) "faRO" is that author's writing nom; I just did about 20 folks in that club. This actually is asking about all citations. In my happy opinion, if a citation is wholly taboo to a lipogram from start to finish, anybody could try cutting or changing our using that particular work; it's not a roadblock. Wikilinks (that is, clicking "faRO") put all info right into anybody's hands. So partial citations may stand comfortably, I would think.

(2) "Conflagration" charitably backs off from graphically talking about a burning building gratuitously.

(3) No quotation; my link says actually "try for about $4000" and also has $3000 in 2006. Click it at "Anonymous".

(4) Cat in a Hat (Crystal's form) and vocalic link from valid phrasings. I did not fix all links so far, naturally; I'm working bit by bit. I had "manual typing" in my copy but it's just not back right now.

Finally, assuming a risk of conflict soon is no difficulty now. It can follow my paradigm just said. Anything can work out harmoniously. JJB 22:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving portion to Talk:Gadsby (book)#Unofficial count. JJB 10:33, 20 Oct 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that the lipogrammatic back-and-forth has been going on for several years. As "cool" as it is to have a lipogrammatic version of the article, I don't think Wikpedia's mainspace is the appropriate venue for it. It unquestionably does make the article harder to read, which ought to be enough of an argument to avoid such verbal gymnastics. Perhaps seeking a wider opinion would be the best course of action? People who haven't edited the article (as most readers would be unlikely to do) would probably have the clearest idea of what is best for the encyclopedia on this one. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rod, what particularly do you find still hard to grasp in this composition, s'il vous plait? Naturally I grant that old drafts had significant flaws, but do you know of any ongoing difficulty? You will want to list it at talk first, thank you. JJB 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I thought I was listing it at talk.... I think that the difficulty is self-evident. In all seriousness, I don't see any advantage to the lipogram. Circumlocution is simply that ... talking around something that could be said more simply, and more effectively. Your response is a perfect example; while I appreciate the effort you take in avoiding the letter e, you could have made your point much more succinctly. The same goes for this article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, again, particularly what is insuccinct or difficult to grasp? Truly, what circumlocution? If I'm looking at a 4,000-word list of words found in Gadsby, what's so wrong with saying simply (and in good monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon) that it skips from d to f? Inform us, thanks. JJB 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Is it the end of the world either way? No. But "what circumlocution?" Really? Okay, how about this: the lipogram forces the reader do the work of figuring out what we mean. It takes longer to process the meaning of "it skips from d to f" than the meaning of the phrase "it does not use e". Good writing tells the reader the information directly. As such, we should fill in the gaps for Wikipedia's readers, who frequently skim articles or want a quick read. We are writing for our readers, not for ourselves. As for the wikilinks, some readers print out Wikipedia pages, so we should have links that refer directly to the target whenever possible. That makes links like Cat in a Hat and faRO problematic.

I don't mean this to be in any way a comment on any particular editor, but in general it strikes me as rather WP:POINTy to force a lipogram where there is no encyclopedic reason for one. Is it in good fun? Sure. But does it help? I don't see how, and it's more than a bit disruptive to the natural flow of English. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! But I don't think so. I (and Wright) hold that virtually anything I can say without a lipogram, I can say with it also, and (I add) without any "gaps" to fill in or loss of information. Now you put down only two particular points: first, you think that my phrasing is difficult and yours scans quickly. But I don't think that's valid with "skips from d to f", in that talking about a word list with a gap in it is (arguably) not as hard as talking about a book that omits a singular symbol throughout, without fault (that's why I laid that subtopic out that way, with its "Ostrogoths" illustration also for clarity). But if this is arguably so, why fuss? And in fact, if I should grant your point (which I don't), it is still no harm to adopt a slightly difficult phrasing; contributors do that daily on analytical and historical topics, if saying it rightly is also saying it a bit murkily (such as with mid front IMhO). So this is a highly minor point.

As to links, look at WP:R2D if you don't mind. No policy says a link must go straight to its topic. David Crystal took up that phrasing "Cat in a Hat" in his own book, so that's what I put it in too; it occurs plausibly and is worthy of wikilinking. "FaRO", as a nom of its author, is not unprintworthy, and is that author's primary alias in wordplay publications; but you can always switch it to "Onomastics" too. No, in fact, I'll do that now.

In short, I think that you lay out no convincing grounds for your phrasing improving this topic. But I'm always on hand for discussion. JJB 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, and I mean this with all due respect, the fact that your responses are all in lipograms is running afoul of WP:POINT: I cannot easily understand you, and if you can't believe me, that is not my problem anymore. I see you like puzzles and wordplay, and that's great, but our readers should not have to figure out the puzzle of what we mean in an encyclopedia article. That's a basic law of good communication, not a "highly minor point". As for the WP:R2D policy you mention, I quote (with my italics for emphasis): "In many cases where it might seem appropriate to make this change [removing a redirect to point directly at the target page], such as those involving unprintworthy redirects, the better option is to edit the visible text rather than change where the link is pointing. If the linked term is printworthy and presents no other problems to the prose, there is no reason not to just link the term as is." Since the linked terms I mentioned (The Cat in the Hat and FaRO's real name) are printworthy, there is no reason not to just link the target page as is. I am simply suggesting that we edit the visible text ... to make it reflect the linked article without obfuscation, according to policy.

Please see WP:EGG, the Manual of Style for links. Again, I quote: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create 'easter egg links', that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember that there are people who print the articles." Clearly, a link to FaRO is misleading without context. We do not link to Boz and expect readers to know that Boz is a nom de plume for a famous writer; instead we link directly to Dickens. I think the "compromise" you introduced into the article (by deleting the author completely from the citation instead of changing it to Eckler) is not helpful, as it makes for incomplete information.

Similar to the FaRO/Eckler example is your mid front link above: I had to follow the link to get a context when the article's real title, close-mid front unrounded vowel (or even simpler the letter e), would have sufficed. In fact, it is misleading to equate as you do a letter with only one particular vowel sound, since it can be pronounced differently in different phonemes.

Finally, this debate is not new. In fact, the first edit to this very talk page was to complain about the lipogram, and editors have done so repeatedly since then. While an article on the novel surely attracts a particular type of reader who may be more interested in wordplay, it must adhere to Wikipedia's policies. I still don't see how a lipogrammatical Wikipedia article doesn't violate multiple policies in pursuit of an in-joke. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(As if this forum forbids in-joking.) Rod, without going into your points too much right now, your "basic law of good communication" is okay, but your claims of multiplying policy violations do not list any particular phrasings you would add that might fix any flaws (you only hint at a bit of link touchup). You favor misquoting our sourcing, David Crystal (who said "Cat in a Hat" originally), and you do it only to put in a singular solitary word, and it's that most insignificant of all words! Point-making cuts both ways. I was just thinking this morning or last night that this discussion could possibly rapidly spiral downward into a hot disputation about just that word, but I didn't think anybody would truly campaign for that word in actuality so soon. You mistook my words in additional ways also (I was saying that analytical discussion of mid front vocalization in that composition is murky, just as many topics in history or art; I was not saying that any lipogram is murky). Anyway, I will hold off for now so that all may cool down and discuss this calmly. I am asking Mindspill for input, and I'll happily look at R2D again, it might contain an ambiguity that brought on confusion on my part; sorry if so. But if you don't mind, could you and I think about this individually, and both look for an approach that works for both minority and majority? JJB 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, JJB. I don't want this discussion to be anything other than amicable. I suggested outside input a little while ago (maybe in the top section on this page?), and I think it's entirely appropriate. It's probable that I missed your shades of meaning; while I might attribute that to your lipogrammatical writing (hint, hint), it's beside the point of what we should be doing: namely, figuring out what is best for the encyclopedia.

I had a feeling you were going to attack my number of examples, and I suppose that is fair. It's just that I don't really want to bother picking out every example when I feel that almost the entire article is written in a roundabout way, simply for the writer-based exercise of avoiding e. As a result, I pulled examples from above discussion by Soap and you. I grant that I based my Cat in a Hat objection on Soap's comments rather than on the article's context. But I find it disturbing that Gadsby is famous for not using the letter e, and the article makes no mention of e, letter, or vowel. Or, for that matter, that it is a novel. Surely there is a notability problem inherent in that lack.

Would you mind terribly calling me by my full user name? I don't identify as "Rod", and it sounds rather to me ears as if I called you "Ulten" or somesuch. I realize you don't want to because my user name contains an e, but perhaps there is a way around it. You have displayed impressive linguistic skill already.

Anyway, I am content to wait for Mindspill (not sure who that is) or someone else to jump in. Please note that I have not edited the article itself; I am trying to resolve the issue on talk first. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mindspill is probably Mindspillage, one of the early editors of this page. Also, just for the record, the 74.something person is not me; I don't edit Wikipedia from IP except occasionally by accident. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson had jokes in his dictionary.

One of my college textbooks contained an intentional joke in its index; it was a psychology text and the entry for "eidetic imagery" was "see children, memory in;" for "children, memory in" it was see "unexplained phenomena;" and for "unexplained phenomena" it was "see eidetic imagery."

The distinguished biologist Edwin Ray Lankester gave the official scientific name Golfingia to a sipunculid worm he found while golfing. Another one named some crustacean genera Cirolana, Conilera, Nerocila, which were anagrams of his wife's name. A biologist name Kirkaldy created the names Ochisme, Marichisme, Peggichisme, Polychisme, which read as "O kiss me," etc. There's an insect named Chrysops balzaphire ("balls of fire"). Mind you, these are all the official scientific names, under the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and are used for these animals in official scientific writing to this day.

There is intentional humor in the Holy Bible.

The article on Beethoven in the Encyclopedia Britannica from the 11th edition, up through, I think, the last editions before the Britannica 3, says "any outbreak of vulgarity or sentimentality can with impunity claim descent from Beethoven, though its ancestry may be no higher than Meyerbeer." Not exactly a thigh-slapper, but not the sort of Gradgrind-facts-facts-facts style some people seem to think Wikipedia should be restricted to.

The lipogrammatic writing in this article is almost as flowing and felicitous as that of Gadsby itself. With respect to factual information, it is at least as good, as clear, and as communicative as the average Wikipedia article. In addition, it conveys something about lipograms and the quirky fun of lipograms. Removing this makes about as much sense as removing the portrait of Mozart from the Mozart article on the grounds that it conveys no important factual information about the man or his music.

There's nothing wrong with this article. The people who don't like its being lipogrammatic should not make changes just for the sake of being non-lipogrammatic; that's as silly as edit-warring over BC versus BCE, etc.

The editors who fail to see the humor in it ought to just accept that the fact that this one article, of the hundreds of thousands in Wikipedia, happens to have a style they dislike, but which is sanctioned for this article by tradition and consensus. So far, they have not adduced any arguments much stronger than WP:IDONTLIKEIT

I don't see any danger at all of anyone trying to impose this style on any other Wikipedia articles. It's not a slippery slope. Lighten up. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like WP:ILIKEIT. :) -Phoenixrod (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much Dpbsmith! Might I add Strigiphilus garylarsoni? Nobody should fight from grounds of liking it or not liking it. As I said, partial lipograms look most ugly of all options. JJB 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about funny names for creatures, I can mention that there's now a whole website dedicated to them: [1]. And that I don't think most of those of us opposing the lipogram are doing so because we think there's no place for humor in science. In fact I'm not even opposed to there being a lipogram on Wikipedia, in principle. What I object to is that it makes the article hard to read. Looking over the history, I think the early lipogram versions of the article weren't that bad; at least they had the author's name right. But the way the article is now, it relies on very obscure wording and a bunch of redirects that had to be created specifically for this article alone. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Soap. I think it's stretching things rather too far to say we have no sense of humor. (And thanks for all the lovely louse links et al.) For me, it's a matter of readability. And since I have taught composition, I've read some obfuscatory verbiage in my time. Please realize that what I just said wasn't a dig at the Gadsby article as "bad" prose; my point is that roundabout writing truly does take more work for a reader to understand. On another note, it's also rather more difficult to edit an article when the "table of contents" and "edit section" buttons are hidden. I think hiding useful functions is taking the lipogram too far. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how about this? Why don't you (both) put in all your own wordings, all that you think is important to cut out any "obfuscatory" or "roundabout writing", so that (as I'd said) a point-by-point discussion can follow? Right now this composition is laid out fully according to my standards (but for a nitpick with your inclusion of a taxonomy box). Why not work on it until all is satisfactory to you, and start an additional discussion back at talk, toward compromising? Thanks Phoínixrod! (Pardon my colloquializing, I do it to all sorts of folks.) JJB 17:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Phoínixrod works. Well done! I was expecting something more mundane like PR. :)

Before going to the effort of re-writing the article myself, I'd like to know if there is a point to doing so. If I take the time to do a re-write, say on a user sub-page, aren't we going to have the same disagreement as before? One camp will say it is more readable, and another camp (forgive the warlike metaphor) will say it's not a significant enough change to merit losing the lipogram. This previously-anticipated conundrum is exactly why I tried to make my opinion known up front without editing the article, when I said I didn't care to debate the issue much (and now, alas, I've been sucked into just that vortex). Pray, what do you mean by "a nitpick with [my] inclusion of a taxonomy box"? I didn't think I had mentioned the infobox on the right, but it too has oddities: lack of the author's full, recognized name; "classification" as "fiction" rather than something more meaningful such as genre; and links that ought to point directly to the target page, per WP:EGG. Additionally, isn't there a standard novel infobox that would be apropos (or even à propos) here?

So, to summarize: I am reluctant but willing to work on a re-write on a sub-page, but only if I get some assurance that there is a realistic chance that doing so will help the article. I won't be online much the rest of today, but I'll check back when I can. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of a solution such as (1) Phoínixrod says "X" is too circuitous and propounds nonlipogram "Y"; (2) John bounds back with lipogram "Z" or similar compromising; (3) harmony springs up from continuing such a dialog. I still don't know particularly what you find so tortuous that you want to hang your hat on claiming it actually hurts this writing. But if you want to start a sub, that works, I'll just go through it bit by bit with you. At any points that you think my phrasing hurts this composition, if you sway my thinking or if not, I'll happily work toward compromising with you.

Such as this: (1) you think "fiction" is too fuzzy; (2a) I look up fiction and find that its only particularization in that link is by wordcount, which is not only said too much now, but also right on a cusp amidst two subcats of fiction (thus indicating against your wording, with or without "-la"); (2b) I accordingly propound "popular fiction" (phrasing at that topic works favorably IMhO against such options as "historical fiction", and "biographical fiction" with two links); (3) you inform us if that is a working solution to what you had said, or not.

I just want it said upfront that (as I thought I'd shown) if it's significant, a lipogram can talk about it, fully absorbably, and without circumlocution. But it's up to you if you think this topic is still too roundabout to satisfy you (against Smith, Qaqaq, and many alii). Thank you also for maintaining paradigmatic civility!

(P.S. My nitpicking was about this topic's bottom taxonomy box (linking to C:LIP), not its top classification box. Sorry if you mistook it, but that is no fault of my using lipograms; similar miscommunications would occur in ordinary writing also anyway.) JJB 19:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

Sorry for my delay. Unfortunately, I don't have much time for Wikipedia at the moment because of that pesky "real life" business. Let me just make a couple of points: 1) I hope I have remained civil, as that is a primary goal of this or any discussion. 2) I don't think that using a different lipogram is really much of a "compromise" when the problem is the extensive lipogram. You have claimed that a mishmash of lipogram and ordinary writing would be worse than one of the extremes. It strikes me that the only logical continuation from that is to strike the lipogram. 3) JJB, you aren't following my points about "fiction": this article has no call to avoid using the word novel, since that is what Gadsby is. Calling it "popular fiction" is not the same, and it's misleading. I don't see any logical way to avoid using "novel" in the infobox and in the lead. An article's lead must establish why its subject is notable, and the lipogram prevents fully doing that. It isn't enough to say that Gadsby is an ambitious lipogram without explaining that it avoids the letter e. The author's full name, too, should be written correctly. This "Vin" Wright business smells fishy; no one seems to call Ernest Vincent Wright that anywhere. 4) Regarding your postscript, your stubborn refusal to use the word "category" because of its e did lead to confusion, and your claims to the contrary are rather absurd. "Taxonomy box" is not in the same league. Pick your cliché: call a spade a spade, call a novel a novel, call a category a category ... but please don't call it a "taxonomy box". 5) On a related point, please stop using lipograms on the talk page. It is disruptive to understanding and surely violates WP:POINT. If that isn't self-evident by now to any objective reader looking at this page, then nothing is. 6) We cannot hide the "edit section" buttons or categories in good conscience. 7) I strongly suggest some plain English here to avoid confusing readers. That's why we're here ... or at least why we should be. Phoenixrod (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait; and I'm always thankful for your civility (and particularity). I'm all for plain, Strunkian writing. But if you think that my simply avoiding a short list of words, in my own talk, is actually confusion and disruption, laid out only to push a point of wiki law (although I'm in good company with about six contributors who did similar talk lipograms), I'll just publish that list of taboo words (following) so that no disruption of communication occurs. (Wright can wall off his own nonlipogrammatic thoughts into an introduction, right?) This list accounts for any point at which you or Soap might possibly wind up thinking that this topic cannot do without a particular word. (I would also ask you, if you don't mind, to back off from charging too many policy violations too much, as I think I'm accommodating you any way I can.) Anway, in that light, only your 3 and 6 list particulars about this topic's wording; and Soap is still only lurking.

3a: You say this topic hasn't "any logical way to avoid using" word [11] (and, in fact "has no call to avoid using [it,] that is what Gadsby is"). But, possibly I am not following, in that your point is a minor logical fallacy too: Gadsby is both [11], and also book, story, narration, yarn, work of popular fiction, fifty thousand words, forty-odd parts, imaginary biography, fantasy municipal history, lipogram, catharsis, political drama, homily on alcohol, and so on, but I can avoid using most such classifications and pick only a handful. So [11] is provably not our first or only option, and avoiding it is not harmful. You imply that "popular fiction" (my trying for compromising) is poor by comparison, and/or distracting; if so, how?

3b: You want words [10] and [3], and that up in front too; but notability is not about which glyph is lacking, it's that a glyph is lacking at all. If Wright told a 50K story scrupulously avoiding "a" or "m" or "n" or "z", or all four, it would count as just as significant as Gadsby is in its actual omissions. It is important to start things gradually, and that's why I put a big graf on what lipograms actually do, to bring folks in slowly who don't know about this topic. Compromising by promoting "A lipogram is a composition which" to graf 1 is a thought, but such an add looks a bit off-path (and Wikilinks do that job for us now without additional prompting). So talking about [10] and [3] in "Lipogrammatic quality" subgrafs looks right. Again, I can think of many ways of talking about [10] and [3]; I said that "glyph" avoids intrinsic bias against, say, kanji lipograms, although I could think about backing off on not naming [3], assuming continuing tit-for-tat discussion.

3c: Long form of author such as [6], or short form Vin Wright: short form is an optional valid way to say it, among (again) many options. I admit I am not choosing his most common form (which is ...?); but naming policy is actually about topic naming (and that is fully compliant), not about what I link to. Introducing nonlipogrammaticity is actually a writing difficulty, such as would point away from using a long-form link (that is, any variation on [6]). If you find "Vin Wright" fishy on any count, it's still also obviously fully in WP:IAR spirit.

6: You want [5] and [1] to show up in this window. Again, I could think about "boxing out" such words, with a box not counting as part of any lipogram. But in talking about that, I'd want to know (and I did ask) that you'd brought forth all your wording complaints into talk, so that compromising can occur fairly and finally, shutting out any risk of a complaint arising again. As I said, I'll wait, with optimistic anticipation of such a list. JJB 17:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wordlist

[1] categories
[2] contents
[3] e
[4] Eckler
[5] edit
[6] E. V. Wright
[7] fire
[8] genre
[9] hide
[10] letter
[11] novel
[12] Phoenixrod
[13] the
[14] typewriter
[15] vowel

So I came to this article...

...because I was looking for the name of that-book-without-the-letter-e-in-it, and I thought it was called Gadsby. I skimmed this article to see if I was right, but I saw nothing about it not having the letter E in it. Then I went to google and realized it was, so why didn't Wikipedia say that? So I went back to the article and read it carefully, and saw something like "it skips from d to f". As you can see, making this article a lipogram is clever/amusing, but annoying to anyone who wants to skim for the important facts that that person needs quickly. I just wanted to post my story as proof of the article's impracticality. Connör ^(talk) 23:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See, JB? We feel perplexed whenever we see these E-less sentences. We revere the letter E; we detest perverse letter schemes. Deleted letters repress the mere free speech we rebels need. We prefer free verse, where sense redeems senselessness. Ye rebels, beseech me; let September be E's revenge! (I would have written more but http://www.chbooks.com/archives/online_books/eunoia/e.html seems to be mostly about Greek mythology after the first three pages.) Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Brilliant univocalic. You unconsciously show that you actually favor lipograms and writing constraints, in particular individual situations. As for your ability to say what you wish, that's what a lipogram on this topic is all about, isn't it? As if a nonlipogram is antiauthoritarian, and a lipogram isn't?) Anyway, though a majority of contributors favors this lipogram, I can hold that Connor's difficulty is a bit valid. Connor thinks that that word (word 3 in prior list) is such an "important fact" that it should go in our first graf automatically. I did say, prior, that "50,000-word lipogram" is what's important for notability, and what Gadsby omits is not so important, and I would stand on that point; and also on majority handling of this topic, which has no finding of such impracticality. Plus, if Connor actually wants that-book-without-and-so-on, Wiki should point him to lipogram; that book is possibly La Disparition, or A Void, McB'th, or Unhooking a DD-Cup Bra without Fumbling, or four-fifths of Christian Bok (Soap's link), all of which show up at that topic, not this. Wiki's organization is right for this situation as is (but I'll go and add a link to lipogram anyway, which was missing at bottom). JJB 09-09-08

I still think maintaining the article as a lipogram is silly, but since no one else seems to be bothered about it staying this way, neither am I. If the conflict ever gears back up again then I might come back, but I'm not going to let my esthetic preference take precedence over the esthetic preferences of others. So that's why I've gone silent. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone silent for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that JJB is still violating WP:POINT by posting cryptically in lipograms on the talk page after I asked him to stop. A table of "forbidden" words containing e that I must look up each time is ... also silly, and it's not worth my time to press the issue further. Rest assured that I still think it's silly to maintain this article as a lipogram. Cool in a way, yes; but encyclopedic, emphatically no. But a lipogrammatical talk page? Beyond ridiculous. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed it's not very encyclopedic but it's very cool nonetheless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.68.123.166 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's asinine to write the article as a lipogram. If I wanted to know what a lipogram is, then there's a link. I don't need to spend 12 minutes parsing out bad grammar and style, because someone thinks it's cool, and I think such "artistic license" is antithesis to the spirit of Wikipedia. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:34, 19 Sep 2008 (UTC)

Wow I was reading this article and then at some point I realized that the letter E isn't used. Very clever and creative guys!  Xeysz  ☼  19:04, 20 Sep 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didnt know that the article was a lipogram too, wow, I also didnt know there were that manny words in the English language that didnt have the letter "e" in it...Ô.ô wow ô.ô (talk) 23:41, 23 Sep. 2008 (UTC)

It says that glyph isn't in Gadsby, you just didn't find it. Avoiding all fifth orthographic glyphs is a good kind of wordplay. I am also in favor of it staying a liopgram, as Gadsby is. --zzo38(✉) 18:31, 3 Oct. 2008 (UTC)

Shalom zzo38, and thanks so much for joining in this worthy task! Although it might hurt to say it, my first thought is that you might want to work on your writing a bit, mayhap (m-w.com is good for that); I don't know offhand what a "built-in" is or what particularly you want cut out or put in. You can point to my list prior; in it, four taboo words ([1], [2], [5], [9]) still show up in this topic, although I favor pulling all four, but didn't try to do it again so far. What's your opinion? (Also, kindly don't modify contributors' talk as you did with X's. You may wish to undo.) JJB 19:21, 3 Oct 2008 (UTC)

We need to change this article back to normal.

I agree with Soap, just because the book is a lipogram doesn't mean the article has to be, in fact I think it's rather stupid and unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashGordon94 (talk • contribs) 7 October 2008

Hi CrashGordon94! Um, it is normal now. Kindly discuss what you think is stupid, point by point (I ask this of all nonlipogrammatic contributors). Also, you might sign in, and you can try your sandbox for practicing your talk contributions. JJB 13:44, 7 Oct 2008 (UTC)

I ask non-lipogrammatic talk page discussions of all contributors, but look where that has gotten us.... I agree that "normal" is a relative term, but in the broad context of Wikipedia, CrashGordon94 is, of course, right. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT normal, it's still a lipogram. It's stupid because you don't have to use a lipogram to talk about one, wikipedia isn't meant for this silliness and it makes the article harder to read (for example it beats around the bush about not having the letter "e", when a normal article could say something like "The book is known for being a lipogram that skips the letter "e"). I think those are good enough points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashGordon94 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Crash. Look at point 3b, backing up a handful of paragraphs, for this point. "Skip"ping a glyph is not good wording; actually, it is Wright's vocabulary list that skips words (which is what it says). Nobody had to put in a lipogram, but nobody had to put in a nonlipogram now that you point it out. Finally, this is a minority opinion, for many many moons. Also, do not talk WP down in your providing valid criticism, s'il vous plait. JJB 13:44, 8 Oct 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no call to attack Wikipedia at large. There is similarly no call to nitpick the letter of Crash's words and ignore their spirit. JJB, instead of cryptically pointing Crash to "3b", it might be more productive to simply say what you mean here. As for a "minority opinion", I agree that the majority of users who have commented here on the talk page have supported a lipogram (though I will certainly not concede that a majority of readers would support an article sans e). In any case, of possibly paramount importance, I don't see a policy-based reason for a lipogrammatic article other than ignoring all rules, while I have pointed out several times a few relevant policy-based reasons to remove the all-lipogram form. See, for example, WP:POINT, WP:EGG, WP:LEAD, WP:N, WP:Plain English, and the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Why don't we just take this issue to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and be done with it? -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See! You just admitted that most readers wouldn't support the stupid lipogram thing! I think that's a good enough reason to change it back to normal. CrashGordon94 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Crash, perhaps you are mistaking me for JJB? For several months, I have held the position that you are putting forward; of course I believe that Wikipedia's readers (most of whom do not edit) wouldn't support a lipogram. It's JJB who is the primary force arguing for the lipogram. Let's wait for him to weigh in again, shall we? I am still baffled how there is a policy-based reason for the lipogram that outweighs the policies and essay I cited above. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. Thanks for the support. I see that the article now has a sentence saying that the book has no "e"s; that's great! :D CrashGordon94 (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, great! Some moron removed the disclaimer! Do you creeps get pleasure from bewildering our readers?! CrashGordon94 (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My good man, you ask that I say particular words of your choosing which I do not wish to say on this talk. I only ask that contributors who claim flaws in this topic list such flaws, according to policy. World of diff. JJB 20:00, 7 Oct 2008 (UTC)

I would support this listing staying as it is. It is obviously unusual but fitting. (Do not put in my Wiki alias. It ruins my straight run of avoiding symbol following "d".) —This contribution was from Orv (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 Oct 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to enjoy the article (many editors have said it is "cool" even if not appropriate for Wikipedia), but do you have a policy-based reason for maintaining it in light of the policies that indicate that a lipogrammatical article is a bad idea? -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This topic has long had lipogrammaticity as its norm. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it has long been disputed. Furthermore, consensus can change. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that: I don't mind that Gadsby's listing is as a lipogram, but that such strict authority for this topic might go too far in light of this book's topic. But I also ask, "Why not allow for an "e" or two to avoid awkward phrasing?" As long as it is just a "definite article" or similar word, then it wouldn't hurt so bad.Synchronism (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK try now

I am proposing a compromising position in my summary to my adds today. I trust all will look at it assuming good faith. FYI (for your information), this is my construction of that AP story, from combining about six corrupt sourcing mirrors of it (which you can find googling; or, for links, look at my adds):

50,110 Words Minus [By Walt Burton]

Author Wright is a kindly, vivacious chap in Company D at National Military Barracks in this city. A World war musician, Wright's hobby always was to do unusual things. Alumnus of a famous Boston campus class in 1889, Wright's classical foundation is thorough.

DIFFICULT AT FIRST

Publication of a composition without a common fifth symbol and acclaim of it as most odd got him to thinking. And so Wright got to it writing [...] unusual fiction composition. It was difficult at first. Most nouns would not do. "Just try it," Wright said, grinning and pulling at gray hairs of his trim, triangular growth on his chin. Four months and 30 days it took to do it all. It is amazingly smooth. No halting parts. A continuity of plot and almost classic clarity obtains.

Try a shot at his script at random, say a fourth down, about [...] words from his Introduction, and find this as typical: Now I think that you should know this charming Gadsby family; So first I will bring forth Lady [Gadsby,] known as such through Mayor's inauguration; a most popular [lady,] taking part in many a city activity such as clubs and social also; a loyal church woman with vocal ability for choir work; and, good capability on piano or organ, no woman could "fill in" in so many ways; No woman was so willing, and quick to do so.

MAYOR CONSULTS YOUTH

Wright calls his book--"Gadsby--Champion of Youth." It is about a mayor who consults youth in his administration. On and on it flows. No short cuts of words or phrasing is found, which in full would contain taboo symbols. First "Bob" was Wright's romantic swain, but a kibitzing companion said Bob was short for a word containing a taboo symbol, so it is "Frank" now, not Bob.

Writing this way is a good thing for an insomnia victim to try.

Now that it's down to that point at which authors say "finis," Wright ought to win on it.

JJB 20:01, 17 Oct 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly trying to assume good faith. But I don't understand what you are saying about corrupt mirrors and constructed stories. Do you or don't you have a citation for the above text?

Anyway, no one has yet answered my simple question: What policies support a lipogrammatic article in spite of the policies I have cited against the lipogram? (In other words, why should our own writers' desires trump our readers' needs, in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia?)

And why is my question about WP:RFC repeatedly ignored? Are the lipogram-favorers reluctant to involve outside viewpoints? I'm rather frustrated with this dead-end. So why not seek independent eyes? -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My good man, if you must know all this, I will try to lay it all out for you again, in plain Anglo-Saxon:

1. As you could find out from my adds, portions of this AP story ran in Indy and in Oshkosh Daily; in history, you can find a link to a Wisconsin Journal copy; and I saw about four additional publications containing similar copy, which I don't wish to find links for again at this hour. Not counting Indy (and CS Monitor, a pay copy), all this copy is corrupt archival scans. To obtain a good draft of what AP said originally, I did lots of googling, bit by bit. That is, basically, look for "vivacious chap in Company D" at this link, and you obtain a quick-gloss which says "vivacious chap in Company D at and pulling ..."; look for "Company D at and pulling" and you obtain "at and pulling at grays hairs of hfs trim triangular growth on his chin ..."; and apply again circularly until worn out. All I did was to put all such jigsaw bits as I could find into a matrix of what probably was AP's original script, fixing all column mismatchings and scanning typos and such. This is all ordinary, basic construction from corrupt sourcing, such as any form critic could do with old torn manuscripts. Obviously "[...]" is a sign for a word or words that did not show up in any mirror. But, so as to avoid boring anybody, I just put my own build of what AP said in a quick go, and I did not say "I put 'his' for 'hfs'" on all occasions. In short, this copy is basically what Oshkosh Daily originally ran, but only with as much accuracy as anybody can supply.
2. You did not go for my compromising. I thought I could allow you your glyph in that first paragraph if you could allow omission of tag words. No policy puts us in such a box that TOC and tag words turn mandatory on us; but you say, "no way you can" do this. I can, I just did, I can again. But I was compromising: waiving a point as invitation for your waiving a point. If you don't wish to join in on this, I'll back up and think again again. But I must ask again why you imply that a TOC and tag words, with such an insignificant boon to anybody, would count as so important to you that you can't find any halfway point for compromising at.
3. I didn't talk to your policy citations or RFC proposal, as I didn't want to say that your citations do not go against a lipogram, but cut both ways. But now I must say it.
   1. I'm not disrupting for illustration of a point. I'll admit I'm limiting my own idiom, as many do on this talk, but I'm saying just what I want to say, so I'm doing nothing to disrupt. Is my idiom irritating to you? If so, um, is that my fault?
   2. Do you actually think that I'm hiding "what's going on" from anybody? On WP it is wrong to say, "This paragraph is a lipogram" (WP:SRTA); WP says it as, "Following is a lipogram: a-df-z", or similarly (in fact, look at lipogram). So I'm in-joking, as WP did by putting Ima Hogg as FA for April Fools' Day with a fishy-sounding but valid blurb graf. Doing this kind of writing right is fitting and has majority approval.
   3. My capitulation on our first graf should cut out your WP:LS point; but you didn't say anything about it.
   4. What's notability got to do with it?
   5. What's not plain about my writing?
   6. If you want discussion and not voting, what is your discussion point? What's wrong with this topic? You say that you don't want to say.
   7. Why do you want my approval on your going to RFC? ("Why not" go to RFC, you ask: right, why not?) But what would it talk about, anyway? But that's "what's wrong with my writing" again.
4. You ask what policy supports a lipogram. I said WP:CON many ways, naturally. This is also a good application of WP:IAR (I know many bad applications crop up too). Also WP:5P, in that WP has almanac roots, has no bar against in-joking and brilliancy, and may thus, with impunity, talk subtly as long as it also talks plainly. But what's actually going on is that (you look as if) you want a nonlipogram, but you don't want to list any major flaws with my writing, which is contrary to WP:DR#Discuss IMhO. I grant that our old copy on this topic had obvious flaws, such as "typing contraption". But that's old history now. I claim that with a lipogram I can say all that anybody would want to say on this topic, and that that point is in fact so valid that I can also go so far as to throw in your glyph in an apt singular location on top of all this. And that point, WP's ability to say anything in lipogram that anybody might wish, is what you still do not talk against. My phrasing "popular fiction" is as good as your options; no wording is so significant or mandatory as to start us fighting with any passion.
5. You imply that in violation of WP spirit I am ignoring an implicit duty to that onlooking crowd that I don't want to fulfill. What particular duty? It's not my duty to say particular words at your claim that I must; it's not my duty to strip WP of all humor; nor to submit to a minority only qua minority; nor to work hard at divining what is plain monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon to you if it's AOK in my book; nor to go to RFC for you. But if I am guilty, indict away! JJB 10:02, 20 Oct 2008 (UTC)

---

All I want to add is that I'm not sure that all of the "thumbs up" votes would necessarily approve of this extreme version of the lipogram that lacks even the edit links. Writing a 2500-word Wikipedia article as a lipogram is respectably clever; it's longer than [2]. But tricks like hiding section headers and typing Unicode E-like symbols instead of E don't really add anything to the show. In my opinion, anyway. And yes, I still think it should be reverted, although I'm too busy right now to commit myself to the task of taking the last known nonlipogram version and touching it up to reflect the recent additions you've made. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

---

JJB, thank you for finally answering my questions, somewhat. But really ... really ... if you refuse to write in plain English that includes the letter e even on the talk page when I have asked you not to, and furthermore you claim that it is my problem that your non-standard choices are hard to follow, that is refusal to get the point by definition. You seem to think that writing in a lipogram proves that lipograms make for easy comprehension; I strongly disagree, and have told you so repeatedly. Claiming "I'm not disrupting for illustration of a point" is, seemingly, a refusal to get the point.

I (and I am not the only one, certainly) have told you that your writing in lipograms and circumlocutions obscures your meaning and makes it hard to understand your points. If you say that's not your problem, you are again refusing to get the point.

I didn't go in for your "compromise" because it wasn't clear what you thought the compromise was. I thought that you meant including "E" in the lead—which, by the way, was my point about WP:N and WP:LEAD: the lead should explain why a subject is notable or worth having an article about (in this cause because Gadsby does not contain the letter e). The relevant text in WP:LEAD is this: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points". As such, failing to mention that Gadsby is notable for its avoidance of e defeats the purpose of having the article in the first place.

I do think you are hiding "what's going on" from readers (although I'm not sure what you're quoting). In particular, readers who aren't familiar with Gadsby and readers who print out Wikipedia pages will be confused by a citation claiming an author as "Al Ross, Jr." when the real author, A. Ross Eckler, Jr., has apparently never gone by your name for him in print. Or even on as simple a point as the author of the book: you would have us believe that his name is Vin Wright instead of Ernest Vincent Wright. That is disruptive because it is not the author's name.

Apparently you are disturbed that I didn't comment on your insertion of an E into the lead. I applaud the concept, but like Soap, I don't see the point in redirecting to the letter from a symbol. It's silly.

What's not plain about your writing? Come on. It's hard to parse; that's a big reason why lipograms are not wildly (or even remotely) popular. I'm pretty sure you know this, and I am dangerously close to concluding that you are simply enjoying playing a game (something Wikipedia is not.)

What is my discussion point? My point is that the lipogram is silly for a serious Wikipedia article, "cool" though it may be, and we have no business writing a serious article in such a protracted and difficult style. Because you have demonstrated little compromising in your position that the article should be a lipogram (inserting other lipgrams in their stead is hardly much of a compromise), I feel that any substantive change I make should have a concensus first. That's why I'm discussing on the talk page. That's why I want to see outside input from something like RFC. I've never filed anything with RFC, so I was hoping that someone familiar with the process could do it.

Re: your point #4. Okay, so you claim a concensus for ignoring the rules. Thanks for clarifying. As far as I can see, however, what you call a consensus is simply a series of random votes without much basis in policy. It's simply a straw poll, and the relevant guideline is that polling is not a substitute for discussion. I could just as easily claim that the only voices in favor of the lipogram who are contributing to real discussion are JJB and, to a limited degree, Dpbsmith—while I and Soap, and maybe CrashGordon94, are opposing the lipogram to various degrees. In other words, any claim to consensus is flawed, at best. (Note further that "Asserting a consensus where none exists" is a form of gaming the system, a violation of WP:POINT, and really ought to be avoided.) So it comes down to IAR, which states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't see how the rules I've cited prevent us from improving Wikipedia, especially in the realm of clarity, so IAR isn't really a strong argument for a lipogrammatic article. What would be lacking if we did not have a lipogram? Would the reader get any less information?

Re: your point #5. Do you honestly think that Wikipedia isn't written for its readers? We editors have a duty to write clearly and concisely; circumlocution to avoid the letter e is seldom clear and even more rarely concise.

You claim that "But what's actually going on is that (you look as if) you want a nonlipogram, but you don't want to list any major flaws with my writing". I do indeed want a non-lipogrammatic article. Have I not listed major flaws with the writing already? The most major is that it is difficult to understand what you mean at times. Other flaws I listed at Talk:Gadsby_(book)#Continuing_discussion.

Are you asking for a point-by-point listing of every last problem that the lipogram causes? As I said before, I would consider taking the time for that endeavor if I were assured that it wasn't a complete waste of time. But, JJB, your incessant lipograms on the talk page lead me to believe that you are unlikely to address those concerns if you are not even willing to speak in plain English here. -Phoenixrod (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for staying tough with such twists and turns as this dialog has thrown at us! Did you look at that Ima Hogg link? Did Raul654 fail policy by supplying implausibly circuitous trivia for this FA's blurb, although policy would limit him to simply quoting and summarizing his topic's first paragraphs? Is innovation so forbidding that you would not chip in at all on improving its wording, so as to withstand scrutiny of growing proportions? Look, I found this topic in poor condition, with partial and full lipograms immixt, and sad wording throughout; it now says (virtually) all anybody would wish it to say, and aptly links to fulfill any surplus wants.

But you may still think it omits unforgivably. OK, and yup, I am "asking for a point-by-point listing", as I do on any topic conflict. I can truly say, (again,) that it is what any contributor would do who wants such a conflict to wrap up amicably. (Again, I point you to my wordlist.) I was compromising by allowing word [3] on that list, and asking you to forgo [2]-[5]-[9] in combination. You put [2]-[5]-[9] back in. I thought you'd try RFC, so I cut all four words; you put [2]-[5]-[9] back in again, forgoing [3]. Now that is also a try at compromising, for your part, which I did not fight (and which I might allow for good, if you and I shook hands on it finally). But you don't know, nor do I, what you might still want as bargaining chips to fight about, and until you can put that list down, that final shaking of hands will wait.

So your first point is that you think I "can't" omit [2]-[5]-[9], as if WP is forcing all topics to contain such words. Actually, WP:GFDL was my inspiration in this omission, which admins maintain with high standards of purity. But, point two, you don't truly want to forgo [3], as if saying [3], and that upfront, is a "most important" point. (As I said,) Gadsby's notability is its lipogrammaticity, not which glyph it was built upon; this point was always valid in history of lipograms too. Linköping lipograms omit forms of a and o; Carroll Bombaugh has only o; Christian Bök omits all vocalics in turn; McB'th omits two. And as far as I know, many old lipograms (which I just had not got around to putting into lipogram) do not try for "most common glyph" status, but work mostly randomly. I think I was told of a historic lipogram in which its first "book" lost all alphas, its third book all gammas, and so on (or was it in Arabic?). I know of an author who, for many many moons, put no r in his writing or daily dialog (though it was highly irritating for a lot of folks); and that's his notability. (If this conflict wraps up soon, WP may soon find out about him.) I do say that Gadsby skips from d to f; if you only want this up in our first graf, it can go in without saying [3].

Third point, you say again that my pal Ross should go by that ordinary form as it shows up in print, including word [4]. (Rabbit trail into old puns-and-anagrams humor: Crossword author M. Taub says that Al Ross is actually short for Al-BAT-Ross. Ha ha.) Anyway, I did put in a form that Ross was using in print for an awful lot of writing, that is, "faRO" (that's what I know him as, too), and that too did not work for all of us. But [4] is not strictly a good word to fight about including; it has many ways that can go around it.

Fourth point, you say this also about [6], as if "Vin Wright" is not in any way a form that Wright could go by. That is a valid form for him; I'm not hiding anything, as my links clarify. If you want to say that this book's topic is invalid without naming its author with a particular stylization, that might work for a slight bit. But you don't say if this is a bargaining chip, or if you cannot do without it.

Stating a compromising position would say what you allow and what you insist upon, on all four points and any additional you wish to bring. So far that's six words you look as if you don't want to do without. If you insist on all six words, and also hold out on finishing your list of additional words, that's hardly a compromising or middling position; and it's just as if I should insist on omitting all six words (which I don't). So what is important to you and what isn't?

I don't think our arguing about policy is accomplishing much. Policy has not much to say, if you strip out all its glorifying of humor and patting us on our backs for smart in-joking. I might submit that your position is that which cuts against WP cultural norms. You and I can talk minority, majority, voting, and unanimity all day, but that's playing statistics. What you want is clarity and concision. So "improving WP" is listing what is poor and fixing it. But if I ask you, you put down only a small amount of quibbling points. I still await your full list. (Now I could, assuming good faith, add back your prior list, which had [11], [10], and [1]; and you had past complaints about [8], [13], and [15]; but that's all I know of, and you didn't say anything to my points at "Continuing discussion", so I said nothing too.)

To Soap, you'll want to know that I did that hard work, that is, I did look at all drafts of this topic from start to finish, and put in all points in any draft that had any validity. So you may look for nonlipogram drafts but I don't think you'll find much to add. That vanity publishing firm's ID, mayhap; but why insist on that?

Finally, my good sirs, on talk, I may and I do say just what I want to (within normal limits as fitting for usual two-way dialoguing, naturally). It is not my job to guaranty your ability to follow all that I say, nor is it your right to obtain any particular idiomatic inclusion (say, vocalic or consonantal) from my WP account at any instant. My job is only to pick words with as much clarity as I can, and yours to try to follow along, with both of us just muddling through if it fails to work at any point. That is all simply such an ordinary two-way communication standard that I don't think I wish to harp on it again, it is so basic. If I avoid lipograms totally, it still occurs on and off that, although I may think I got my point across just right, I didn't do it at all in actuality. My bad! Try, try again! But your WikiLaw application of WP topic policy to how I wish to talk is hardly fitting to this Gadsby talk column, anyway; it's actually most apt at: JJB 01:50, 22 Oct 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the Ima Hogg April Fool's Day blurb. Note that the blurb was not in the article; rather, it was the short section written for the main page. Thus, your Ima Hogg link is not at all analogous to this article: while the Hogg article was a one-day blurb for April Fool's Day, the Gadsby article is in its misleading and confusing lipogrammatic state every day. By making the comparison, you are implying that we should pull an April Fool's joke on our readers with this article, yes? How can you justify that position?! And your accusing me of WikiLawyering is simply laughable; of course WP:POINT applies to talk pages.

You claim that "It is not my job to guaranty [sic] your ability to follow all that I say". Actually, it is, JJB—at least as far as not intentionally and actively putting obstacles in the path of comprehension. If you refuse to speak comprehensibly and non-lipogrammatically after I have repeatedly asked you to lose the lipogram for the purposes of discussion, then you are going out of your way to guarantee that I cannot follow all that you say. I am not going to waste my time trying to parse your words any longer in light of your clear WP:POINT violations. Let me quote the nutshell of that policy: "If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point". I have told you that your lipogrammatic talk page comments are disruptive and hard to understand. Do not refer me to a grid of words you are not willing to write simply because you are making a disruptive point.

I am willing to compile a list of specific problems with this article when I have a chance, but I'm not going to engage any longer in this game of monkeys throwing faeces at each other. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Our story so far

• Phoínixrod and I both find that this topic, as it stands today, fails our standards. I would trim 3 tag words (also known as [2]-[5]-[9] at Talk:Gadsby (book)#Wordlist); Phoínixrod would add 9 words or so, and has not said what, if anything, is on his list additionally.
• If a contributor finds anything confusing, that party should particularly say so and all can discuss it. But our discussion about all 12 words has not found actual middling ground so far.
• Phoínixrod, I put no bar in your way. Just as anybody would, I think of all my options for wording, and I pick that which I think has most clarity. If a nonlipogram is truly fitting, I can do that (as I did with that wordlist).
• 10 or 11 contributors so far talk in lipogram; I just do it most. So is it all of us disrupting to win points? (81.134.54.129, JIP, Robin Johnson, Zuiram, Dpbsmith, Thu, zzo38, Orv, Synchronism; and Soap in univocalic, which is also lipogram!)
• Still waiting for that list of confusions and how you would go for improving such.
• No scatological simians that I know of, sorry. JJB 02:52, 26 Oct 2008 (UTC)

JJB, thank you for your version of events. My previous comments stand from here.

As for your point about other contributors who have commented in lipograms, note that they did not do so in long and arcane paragraphs after being asked not to.

Still with the list of "e" words you refuse to say? I'm disappointed. I thought you actually wanted this discussion to improve the article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick run-through, improving what I could to Wikipedia's normal standards, but it is still confusing for someone who hadn't read the story...and that's not what this article is for. I'm going to tag the plot summary with an {{inuniverse}} tag, there's a requested move in, and we'll see what happens. Feel free to userfy your lipogram version, but it can not stay as a Wikipedia article. My apologies and cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

hahaha well done

Glad to see wikipedia still has a sense of humour. I was beginning to worry about this place. --86.135.177.237 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty cool. I'm not telling the net-nannies on you.TCO (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeking input from WikiProject Novels

Because the top of the talk page says that this article falls under the WikiProject Novels, I have started a thread at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#Gadsby seeking outside input into how lipogrammatical this article should be. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea...run silent, run deep...with things like this.TCO (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why...? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Because we raise the ire of people with no love for the article, but who just like being rule-followers.TCO (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

TCO, the discussion lingered for months without getting anywhere. What would you have me do other than seek further input? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Ask_about_the_subject is rather clear on the matter. Are you suggesting that it's a bad idea to resolve disputes? -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

[Note that I was responding to this version of TCO's comment. TCO, please don't change your comments once people have responded to them; wording is sometimes significant. You can always strike through them if you want to change them, but don't re-write them after the fact. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)]

Naw...that's cool.TCO (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I noted there, writing this article as a lipogram (at least, if it can be done well...) is fine by me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, but the immediately preceding caveat is impossible without the use of the integral English definite article. To grammatically describe any superlative in a sentence almost always requires "the"'s use. Really, this article needs to consider readers' needs first and to that end it needs to be consistent with the rest of the project. That means in the future restricting intentional lipograms to the text of the article, and even then, only if it makes sense. The tacit (not overwhelming) use of lipograms will still be appreciated by privy readers. Let's document the fully 'lipogrammatic' version at WP:humour or somewhere around there.

That said, I respect the current lipogram convention while this discussion procedes. That said, I rewrote the lead (in response to the list of concerns with the lead by Phoenixrod) so that it fit "proper" syntax, and it remained a lipogram while providing essential context (subtly wikiling the hated letter as highly typicial glyph for example). TCO reverted it but without any meaningful explanation stating that "the ongoing discussion is ongoing" (my parsing). And he reverted it to a version predating my edit by thirty-six minutes that's why I'm going to revert TCO's reversion, find something specific and delete it for a rational reason, TCO. Let the discussion continue.Synchronism (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Gadsby: Champion of Youth. JPG-GR (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gadsby (book) → Gadsby (novel) — per WP naming conventions. (This is not a non-fiction book.) — —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per my nom so that this article, like all of the other article here, follows the naming conventions. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. It messes up the lipogramatic quality. Wiki can survive having this article as a lipogram. It survives April 1st. A lot of heart went into the current article.TCO (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support because Gadsby is a novel, and that designation is more precise than "book". Similarly, we have an article for Milton Bradley (baseball), not Milton Bradley (sports player). I quote in italics from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Books_-_literary_works: To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", etc. You may use "(book)" to disambiguate a non-fiction book. This seems quite clear. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but I think the debate over the title is secondary to the larger argument over the article itself, and I think we should all come to an agreement on that before we go about moving the page or editing the text in it. I, at least, will not edit anything until that happens. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Lighten up, everyone, this is excellent, and far more informative as is than if it's messed up. Oh, and see Lipogram for those who don't get it. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • However, support move to any title which would preserve the lipogram and can gain consensus - one suggested by others below, and perhaps there are other possibilities. Andrewa (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: This article should be encyclopedic, not a clumsy homage for the sake of an April Fools joke. I hope that this renaming process will be the first step in restoring a professional standard to such an important article. Funny or not, it's inappropriate. María (habla conmigo) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, because Gadsby is a novel :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose We could have Gadsby (lipogram), Gadsby (story) or Gadsby (fiction) but novel would be wrong, it would look as if we hadn't got the point of it. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support — As cool/neat/awesome as this article may have been, lipogrammatic writing is not appropriate. Gadsby is a novel. The naming convention for fiction says that, for disambiguation, "add the type of literary work in parentheses." Thus, the article should be at Gadsby (novel). This shouldn't even be up for discussion. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing inaccurate or problematic about the title "Gadsby (book)." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. To place what are admittedly arbitrary restrictions on an encyclopedic article is uncalled for and unnecessary. Padillah (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I'll hold off until you finish. My opinion is obvious. JJB 16:20, 26 Oct 2008 (UTC)
  • JJ, if you would, please see WP:SIG#Links...thanks. =/ —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think the central debate here is whether this article can be allowed to be an exception to the normal rules of Wikipedia because of its amusement value. I think that it should not be, because a lipogram version can always be moved somewhere else and the normal one be left as the first article. But, I admit my argument is probably among the weakest of all the arguments on both sides, and so I have to say that I really no longer have strong feelings either way. I will let other people decide for me. I do think it's silly to extend the lipogram to things such as the article title and the edit links on the page, though, because any fool can say "book" instead of "novel" and it doesn't really add to the cleverness, in my opinion. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• For the record, the article has undergone several moves, historically. I hope I'm not missing any, but this is what I glean from the history: 1) The article was originally at Gadsby, which is now a disambig page. 2) Then it was moved to Gadsby (novel) in 2005, where it remained for almost three years. 3) It was moved on 3 July 2008 to Gadsby: Champion of Youth. 4) It was moved on 25 July 2008 back to Gadsby (novel). 5) It was moved on 18 August 2008 to the current Gadsby (book) around the time of the flare-up of discussion of the lipogram, which has continued since then. There was little or no discussion of these moves. Make of these facts what you will, but I would stress that the current title, Gadsby (book), doesn't exactly have a lot of support historically or in policy. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• I reverted this edit, as I believe that it was not justified...if I was wrong in doing so, will a third party revert me? Thanks, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, Soap. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Compromise: Call it Gadsby: Champion of Youth. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) (which recommends subtitles in place of a disambiguation as long as it is short - I think we can consider 3 words short) and it keeps the lipogram. Everybody ok with this? -maclean 23:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • First: yes, that is an okay title. However, some of us have a problem with the article being a lipogram in the first place... (Phoenix, Maria and I so far...) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I could go with this title - but the article style has to change (from lipogram that is) it reads so badly and compromises on material content have been made already. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is right. Strong support (with gratuitous bolding!) for Gadsby: Champion of Youth. --JayHank 05:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support for Gadsby: Champion of Youth, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), whether or not the article is a lipogram. Sssoul (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support for Gadsby: Champion of Youth, good suggestion, and appropriate whether or not the lipogrammatic article is itself preserved. Or are there better titles we haven't thought of? Another possibility IMO is Gadsby, currently used for the DAB page that could move to Gadsby (disambiguation) which is currently not even a redirect. I'd think this was arguably the primary meaning. As noted above this article was originally at the undisambiguated name, but was moved, perhaps without discussion (surprisingly perhaps, or perhaps I've missed it... the DAB doesn't have a discussion page at all, and I can't see any discussion here). Andrewa (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think including the subtitle is a reasonable compromise, and I would be okay with it. It's certainly a more precise choice than the current (book) designation. At the same time, however, I believe the proposed move to (novel) is better. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• What do you think is wrong with WP:NC-BK#SUB? It distinctly says to put in short subtitlings--to avoid disambiguations. Gadsby: Champion of Youth--four words total--is obviously short. This is a good approach, in my opinion. And fully compliant with WP:NC. Can't all of us happily follow this? -- JayHank 16:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I said, Champion of Youth is a reasonable compromise, so please don't imply that I would not accept it. My point is that there is a gray area here. Without question, Wikipedia:NAME#Books_-_literary_works suggests Gadsby (novel) as the title we should use. I acknowledge that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles tries to be more specific, but I don't think it clearly says what you claim (further, it appears to be somewhat poorly written). It starts, "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name. The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes". What does "short" mean? You assume it means a word count. I believe, from the examples given, that it is a character count. "Champion of Youth" is longer than " (novel)" for this Gadsby article. Therefore, I believe that Gadsby (novel) is better under both policies. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• You think the intent of the subtitle guideline is that we should use subtitles when the title is shorter than "(novel)". "Character count" is an absurd interpretation. So it was for all those books and novels with 4 letter subtitles? That's not a reasonable interpretation, especially since it's directly contradicted by the very first example. Orlando: A Biography is longer than Orlando (novel). --JayHenry (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Also, please read Wikipedia:NAME#Books_-_literary_works again. What's the last sentence? "Rationale, specifics and exceptions: see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)". Contrary to your assertion, both guidelines are actually quite clear. NAME says to refer to NC-BK for exceptions. NC-BK says to use subtitles. Your interpretation of character count is obviously not what was intended. --JayHenry (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

JayHenry, I have read both policies several times, and I am quite aware that one policy points to the other for specifics and exceptions. That is exactly why I focused on your link to NC-BK in my comment. Please don't willfully misunderstand me; as I said, we are not so far apart in that "Champion of Youth" is a reasonable title, and better than the current one.

I think it would be bad form for me to attack all of the "absurd" arguments above in the Survey section, but you insist on arguing over what amounts to a really, really minor point in the whole discussion. Let me repeat again that Champion of Youth is a reasonable compromise. I'm not sure why you are pushing against that statement.

I don't know where you are getting "all those books and novels with 4 letter subtitles"—did I mention such a list? Look, I did not mean a strict character count as in "Orlando: A Biography has X characters. Orlando (novel) has Y. X > Y, so we must prefer Y." That is why I said "gray area". I would call those similiar lengths, namely short, so of course the subtitle is preferable per the guideline. Sure, "character count" was probably a poor choice of words—perhaps you'd prefer if I said something like "visual length"?

But please read again the last two examples at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Subtitles. One says to prefer "Social Contract (Rousseau), not The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right". Why not include the subtitle there? Because it's signficantly longer than the disambiguating version. The last example says to prefer "On the Origin of Species, not ... On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". Again, the second version is not a huge number of extra words, but it makes the title no longer qualify as short.

So, to reiterate my earlier point, it comes down to how we define "short". It is a judgment call, so calling it absurd when I disagree, in however minor a degree, is crossing the line. It's fine if you disagree with my interpretation of when a title goes from "short" to "long" or when the length becomes a greater concern than avoiding a disambiguation, but how then do you define the difference? (Since apparently you are able to divine the intent of the guideline and I am not.)

Finally, it is simply not true that "NC-BK says to use subtitles." Rather, it claims the opposite except in rare circumstances: "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name." In other words, the onus is on editors to prove an exception rather than to claim that the subtitle is a rule. Furthermore, "The only exception to that is short titles, for disambiguation purposes." Clearly, the "purpose" behind the move to Champion of Youth is to maintain a lipogram, not to disambiguate. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that "Champion of Youth" is clearly a short subtitle. I could just as easily claim that the "purpose" of your desire to move to "(novel)" is motivated by your fervent desire to undo the lipogram. Instead let's talk about the guideline. The Rousseau book with subtitle is 53 characters. Gadsby is 25. It's less than half the size and yet you refuse to acknowledge this is smaller! The Darwin example is about whether to include the subtitle when there's no issue about disambiguation. --JayHenry (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ed...you might even be right...that this should not be a lipogram:

Who knows. All of us have acknowledged that point. But consensus was to leave it. Heck, there is an April Fool's joke and Brittinaca doesn't have that. So who says that for sure, we can't have something like this. Especially if well done. But who knows, you might be right.

But...just storming in here...with NO DISCUSSION and by fiat messing the thing up is uncool. Make your case in discussion, first.TCO (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This consensus was a total vote tallied over 3 years...as I noted above, "2005 on Wikipedia was a lot different than 2008 on Wikipedia."

The discussion is ongoing at this second, and the changes I made to the article are fully within WP policies... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the general practice is to leave the main page alone until a consensus has been reached on the talk page. I will revert it back to the lipogrammed version now so that it doesnt look like we are ignoring the rules. I appreciate the work you did and it can always be used as a starting point in the future. If you want to copy the whole page to a subpage of your userspace and edit it there, you can do that. It can be called User:the_ed17/Gadsby for example. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: by consensus, I dont mean an informal survey of users, but rather the whole Wikipedia:DR dispute resolution process. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What I've seen is WP:BRD; Be Bold, Revert, Discuss. If you want to, make a change, if it gets reverted then go to the talk page. I must admit, I've not really been in a discussion where the entirety of the article is the contentious edit. Padillah (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This lipogram stuff has got to go.

I saw this on the WikiProject/Novels page and came to have a look. The biggest problem I have is there is nothing that notes the article as a lipogram. As such it's just a messy read. I made a few edits and was reverted so I came to the talk page to participate in the discussion, but I can't find any. There are several editors that disagree the article should be written in this way, there's even a poll about the name, but there's no discussion regarding whether the article should be maintained as a lipograph or not. How can I violate talk page consensus when there's no discussion going on? I've reverted the edits since there is no talk page discussion and would like to start with suggesting this entire format is one big WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Being in lipogram format adds nothing to the article and should stop. Padillah (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, essentially this entire talk page is devoted to the discussion as to the format this article should be in. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you were drawn here by a note that asked you to contribute to the consensus; which you've summarily ignored. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You'l forgive me for not wanting to wade through that morass of indecipherable prose o determine what that guy was on about. I have an aversion to getting into discussions with people that are being intentionally obtuse so that they don't have to listen to others. It annoys me when my three year old does it and it annoys me when JJB and others do it. Padillah (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the whole talk page is one long discussion about the lipogram. I'd encourage jbmurray not to throw around the word "consensus", though, in edits like this one; there's hardly a clear decision yet. I think the only agreement right now is that we won't try to force through major changes without discussion—such as completely undoing the lipogram. I'd also encourage Padillah not to use WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the discussion; as I understand matters, that is a deletion argument. I'm working on a list of specific problems with the lipogrammatic version of the article which I hope will spark more specific discussion, but I'm sure it won't be a complete list. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm not sure about "throwing around." But there does seem to be a consensus, albeit a fairly precarious one that is currently (and not for the first time) coming under fire. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait: to go on a quick vote count, there are 7 supports and 4 opposes. (With the first oppose having the weird reason of "It messes up the lipogramatic quality." HUH?) Doesn't that point to a (albeit precarious) consensus of support? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're counting. But above, another editor counts "48 favoring [writing the article as a lipogram], 33 (including vandals; plus four probably socks) against. A goodly majority of all chiming in favor a lipogram." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's rather clear that the_ed17 was counting votes on the proposed move to Gadsby (novel), and probably extrapolating that as support for a "normal" (i.e., unlipogrammatic) article. The count you cite by JJB above is extremely flawed for a number of reasons that should be clear from old discussion and from the article's history. In any case, I think that the conflicting ways of counting "votes" itself shows that there's no clear consensus numerically—although the policy arguments are weighted heavily against the lipogram. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Two things: 1) I meant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but you already brought that up (several times from what I can see). Thanks for the poke-in-the-ribs. 2) I never agreed to this Not making edits that mess up the lipogram. And I don't see why anyone that doesn't support the style could agree to support it. The requirements of Wikipedia are counter to the lipogrammic style, <ref> tags have already been brought up, not to mention the refs themselves. This page has no citations and as such would fail an AfD in a relativly short amount of time. Applying arbitrary restrictions on article content is not conducive to being lucid. Padillah (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not true that the article has no citations, or that it would fail AfD. In fact, if anything it has too many citations; this is one of its weaknesses. Also too many of its references are poor ones. The number of citations and the number of references should both be cut. Meanwhile, I think you're confusing one particular format for citations ("ref" tags) with citations per se. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is tricky but I would say go for the lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but why? How about some reasoning instead of what amounts to a pure vote? -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fun, interest, ignore all the rules, occasional exception, why not? As I will make clear elsewhere, I think the lipogram should be restricted to the main text with footnotes added to remove what I consider the be abusive use, such as modification of proper nouns.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of specific complaints about the lipogram

Okay, I'm compiling specific problems with the lipogram. This list is incomplete (on the first go-around, I'm not going to attempt dealing with the body of the article yet). Taken together, I think they make a compelling argument for why the article should not be a lipogram.

Novels Infobox:

1. Author should be the full name, not Vin Wright. The author is Ernest Vincent Wright, not Vin Wright. We should not make up a nickname for him. As evidence, I'll point out that Googling "ernest vincent wright" and gadsby leads to 6310 hits, while "vin wright" and gadsby yields literally five hits.
2. I'm glad we are calling the book a novel now, since that's what it is. "Novel" is a genre studied in literature; "popular fiction" is a much looser term that is so broad as to be almost meaningless. And really, was Gadsby ever popular or widely read once the lipogrammatic shock factor wore off?

References/Citations/Attribution to works (or whatever the section is called today):

1. Walt Abish should be Walter Abish. Let's use real names instead of making up redirects that are used once.
2. Al Ross, Jr. should be A. Ross Eckler, Jr.. Removing his last name or piping a link to FaRO is silly. Wikipedia uses last names to refer to authors. Let's do that here.
3. Douglas Richard should be Douglas Hofstadter. Again, use his actual name, including the e. He is not D.R.H.; we need to use his last name. This clearly playful piece aside, he is Hofstadter in academic publications. See WP:EGG, which advises, "Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on."
4. Oxford Dictionary is likely an incomplete reference, since there are many Oxford dictionaries.
5. Various other citations that aren't linked (for example, Indy staff when the newspaper's name is The Evening Independent). I'm sure there are others. All of these problems with references stem from avoiding the letter E. Is the point of citation to show off how smart we are—or to help readers find more information? The article is currently privileging the show-off route. Bad idea.

See also/Similar topics section:

1. "See also" is the standard name. "Similar topics" loses the distinction of whether the link is internal (within Wikipedia) or external.
2. "Taxonomic list of lipograms" is redundant with Category:Lipograms on the bottom of the page. I hope I don't have to explain why we shouldn't hide the categories.
3. "Lipogrammatic discussion of Gadsby" links back to this page. Maybe that's a way of avoiding direct self-reference (for example, saying "This article is a lipogram"), but it's certainly in the spirit of self-reference. Either way, I don't see the point of the link. Let's remove it.

External links/Auxiliary links:

1. "External links" is the standard section title. No need to vary. In fact, "external" has the added benefit of indicating that the links are outside of Wikipedia, in contrast to a standard "See also" section. "Auxiliary" loses the distinction.
2. Do we need a link to a copy of the novel? I'm not sure on this one, but isn't there a Wikisource template that would be clearer?
3. We don't need two links to the full book. Let's cut the spinelessbooks.com link.
4. Why do we need a WorldCat link? It isn't Wikipedia's job to find all the world's copies.
5. The link called "Facts" has incomplete citation information. Critically, it was published in the magazine Time but doesn't say so. Come on ... Readers shouldn't have to click on links before they know what they are looking at. See Wikipedia:Self-references_to_avoid#Think_about_print; some readers will print articles or view them on other websites/mirrors, so we should not obscure information.
6. In the "About Words" link, what is "alphagrammatic rarity"? Let's say what we mean here. Clarity does not mean dumbing down.

Introduction:

1. "Intrawar" should be "interwar": intra is a prefix meaning "within", whereas we should say "between the wars". The redirect was created by JJB on July 3, and this is the only use of intrawar on Wikipedia. It's not accurate.
2. "Intrawar account" is vague. What sort of account? Is it fictional? Is it a newspaper profile? The sentence goes on to say that Branton Hills is a fictional city, but that still doesn't address the form/genre of the "account". A better, clearer phrasing would be something like "1939 novel".
3. Author's name should be accurate. I addressed this with the infobox above.
4. Why are there no footnotes for claims? We should be using <ref>.
5. Gadsby is "possibly most famous" and "probably most ambitious" of a set of lipograms, but the introduction fails to mention why. This leads into the next point.
6. The novel is notable because it does not use the letter E. Let's say so in plain English. Otherwise, we fail WP:LEAD and possibly fail to establish the article's notability in the introduction.

-Phoenixrod (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've taken to draw up specific issues. But I do think that the discussion has to be a general one: Obviously, if you set out to write with such a restriction, you are forced to come up with some rather odd formulations. That's no great surprise.

The question is whether or not the article can be written well, or well enough, in lipogrammatic style.

And what does "written well" mean? Well, I think it's quite the opposite of the "show off" posturing that you claim. Ideally, a well-written lipogram should not be immediately obvious. The reader should note that something is off, but without being entirely sure what.

Of course, once the restriction is pointed out, it's obvious. But I don't think that it's a problem that it's not immediately clear what's going on in this article: again, that's the point. And it's quite different from showing off.

Could this article be written better, in lipogrammatic style? Undoubtedly. Could it be written like any other article and still be a lipogram: obviously not; that's the point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These "odd formulations" are what we are complaining about.

Still though: what is so wrong with using <ref> when that is hidden to the reader?

References have to be complete; citing complete and accurate sources is a fundamental cornerstone of Wikipedia that cannot be changed just because the article is written in lipogrammatic style. How can readers look up sources for themselves if the source's name is not complete? Regardless of what happens in this RfC, the sources and in-line citation [roblems have to be fixed. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the reader senses that something is "off", then it's not really an encyclopedic tone and style, is it? To my mind, the logical conclusion of your reasoning, jbmurray, is that the lipogram shouldn't be on Wikipedia. *shrug*

We've had a couple months of general wrangling. Before that, over several years, the issue came up repeatedly, again generally. In reply to JJB's request for specific problems above, I compiled this starter list of problems. Whether the lipogram stays or goes, the points above must be addressed.

I'm starting with an assumption that the needs of an encyclopedia's readers come first. Does having the Gadsby article as a lipogram help readers? I don't see how, since you admit that "you are forced to come up with some rather odd formulations." -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(this is mostly a reply to jbmurray) Let's say that I know nothing about Gadsby, or lipograms for that matter. I come to this article, read the lead section in its current state. What do I learn? It's an "account", a long "story", and a "lipogram" (?). Then there's this befuddling sentence: "it is possibly most famous of all Anglic-group lipograms, and probably most ambitious also." What does that even mean? I honestly don't think I would have noticed that the article itself were a lipogram, mirroring the style of the novel itself; how could I, when the article doesn't even say that the novel was written without the letter "e"? I would have read that last sentence and thought "wow, this article was written by someone who doesn't speak fluent English. I should copy-edit." Truthfully, the rest of the article isn't much better. Unless there is someone out there who is able and willing to write a lipogrammatical article that also fulfills Wikipedia's preference for professional prose, then this problem will be ongoing. The benefit of an accurate, well written and verifiable article far outweighs what is essentially a cutesy homage. María (habla conmigo) 12:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the inordinate amount of issues already raised by Phoenixrod I think the overriding problems would be the restrictions on the citations. To write the article itself in lipogrammic style is an exercise in self-flagellation, but the unnecessary obfuscation of citations and author names is down right misleading and the use of pseudonyms, self-published nick-names, and just plain leaving off full names is wrong and nothing should allow us to represent incorrect information.

If the lipogrammic style is going to be used it should not be the basis for putting in incorrect information "Intrawar" means "within the war" not "between the wars", that statement is blatantly wrong. JJB's intention aside, they do not get to redefine the English language (no matter how many redirects they use). NOTHING should allow us to represent incorrect information. That will change as soon s I finish this post. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. False or misleading information should not be presented. Have a bit of fun with a lipogrammatic article but use full-fat footnotes etc.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

@Jbmurray, Please understand, there is NO amount of discussion that will make incorrect information acceptable. If you can post a citation that "intrawar" means "between wars" than it can be included (for what it's worth, you might wat to start here, or here). Just because some of you guys want to be "cutsie" with the article doesn't mean it gets to be wrong. You want the "E" out of there? Try harder. This is what JJB was touting as the big challenge of lipograms, your vocabulary is limited. You don't just get to make up new vocabulary because you can't come up with a non-e word. Bogus redirects are just as unacceptable. This is a big reason not to continue with the lipogrammatic style for the article: it relies on tricks and gimmicks to accomplish the task. As an encyclopedic article we shouldn't have to rely on gimmicks to inform people. Padillah (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing here about being "cutsie," whatever that's supposed to mean. If you think this article is a "gimmick," then you presumably also think that the novel itself is a gimmick. Which is fine and fair enough. But why not then go off and edit on something that interests you, and work to improve those articles rather than indulging in tedious wikilawyering here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that "cutsey" means that this article is not up to Wikipedia's normal standards...articles here are supposed to have (to quote Maria) "professional prose". This article does not have that, and therefore it should be edited to reflect these standards. If this article could incorporate "professional prose" with a (mostly) lipogrammatic style, I'm all for that. However, basic cornerstones of Wikipedia should not, and can not be sacrificed to achieve this goal...i.e. in-line citations with <ref> tags should be added (can't even see the tags anyway unless you hit [edit]); book titles have to be corrected to their proper names, correct synonyms must be used and something as basic as the author's name must be correct. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If the point is that the article is not good enough, then say so: say that the article is bad, rather than it's "cutsie" or even "cutsey." Given that this article's critics are consistently arguing for a simpler and clearer approach, I'm rather surprised that they beat around the bush.

So let's improve the prose. The question is whether it's possible to do so and retain the lipogram.

Those who say it isn't, of course, are similar to those who say it is not possible to write a novel that eschews the letter e.

One way forward might be to define the limits of lipogramicity. I would personally have no problem in saying that the Infobox and the "References" section could contain the letter. (Note however, that <ref> tags are not required by the MOS; though personally, again, I have no problem with the letter e being used in mark-up that is invisible to the casual reader.

All this seems suitably in line with the practice of Gadsby itself, in which the letter "e" figures on the front cover, for instance.

But once more, those people who are stamping their feet and saying that somehow by definition it would be impossible to write a Wikipedia article without the letter "e" are hardly helping improve the article itself.

This is far from being the only bad article on Wikipedia; in fact it's better than many, better even perhaps than the large majority, and it has been written with deliberate self-restrictions. The question is whether it can be still better and retain those restrictions. I see no reason in principle why not. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I did not say anything about killing the lipogram to "reflect [the] standards" of Wikipedia. :) I have no problem with retaining the lipogram in the article proper if the following happen:

• The infobox is corrected using "e".
• The references are corrected using "e".
  • Yes, <ref> tags are not required, but their use would preserve the article's lipogram while allowing sources (authors) that have an "e" in their name. I.e. instead of "lorm ipsum (Ed, 1009)." we see "lorm ipsum[1]" where the [1] goes down to the References. Does that make sense?
• Sources are corrected using "e".
• Basically, as long as the lipogram is confined to being below the introduction and above the references, then (IMHO, at least) it can stay--as long as...
• the most important part of all this: the lipogram must have—if not totally professional—very good prose. Considering that readers who have not read the novel will not even be aware of the missing letter, the prose has to be of a quality where it is noticeable that something is different, but everything is still understandable. If this does not/can not happen, then I believe that the lipogram has to go.
• Last thing: I believe that the intro should not be bound by the lipogram so that it can explain in plain, normal English, that the letter "e" is not used, among other things. (And hey—the book's intro used "e", so why not us? :D) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair to me. Perhaps the lead could still be a lipogram that specifically mentions e? There's nothing wrong with an article's prose reflecting the prose of its topic- it's to be expected.Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also broadly support this proposal, though I'm less convinced by the introduction using the letter e. In fact, I'll put this proposal in a separate section so it doesn't get lost... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the above complaints do not seem to strongly connected to the fact that the article is a lipogram and those that are seem relatively minor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you perhaps be a little more specific? When compiling the list, I aimed for problems that are caused by the lipogram. I wouldn't classify them as "minor" by any stretch of the imagination. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give me an example from above of something that you consider a major concern and caused by the article being a lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For starters, how about everything in the list at Talk:Gadsby_(book)#List_of_specific_complaints_about_the_lipogram? Even you have acknowledged that references and "intrawar" are problems. I'm baffled how you can recognize that those are significant problems elsewhere in the discussion and yet forget that in this section. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the above list and the points seem to be about issues unrelated to the article being a lipogram or minor. Perhaps you could tell me what you consider to be the three most important points in the above list.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit I'm baffled; I don't know how to reply to that request. I consider them all important, and most deal in part with the lipogram. I think "reducing" a set of specific complaints would gut them and reduce their impact. If I must make a set of principles off the cuff, I would say this:

1. The article must say clearly, for a general reader, why the book is notable. That is probably impossible without mentioning that the novel doesn't use E.
2. References must be complete. Redirects and WP:EGG-violating links like Ross, Jr, Al are inappropriate.
3. You cannot have an encyclopedic article about a book without calling its author by his real name. Vin Wright does not exist except in this article and its mirrors.

If you consider those points minor, then I really don't think we can discuss productively. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. I see no logic in that statement. If it is possible to write a novel without using the letter E then I am sure that it is also possible to provide a good explanation of almost anything using the same lipogram.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree, we should use non-lipogram footnotes.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
3. I thing the link to the full name is acceptable. It is easy enough to see the real name.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There may be a better way of naming the author though.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Martin but I'm forced to ask - Are you being obtuse on purpose? The ability to plainly describe the lipogrammic style of the novel is seriously jeopardized by the exclusion of the very letter we are asked to distinguish. Yes, it can be described in lipogrammic style, but not as plainly, smoothly, or bluntly as simply stating "The novel does not use words that contain the letter "e" ". 11 words (well, 10 and the letter) If you can come up with a sentence that's as plain and uses 11 or fewer words I'll be impressed. And I don't think Phoenixrod was referring to a link to the authors name, I think he wants to state the authors full name. What is wrong with paying the author the respect of using his given name when referring to him? What "better way" would there be of referring to an author than by his given name? The one he used in the publication of the novel, no less. Padillah (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes: for me, including the author's full name is on the level with having full, clear citations. I highly doubt an article could reach FA status without mentioning its author's real name. WP:EGG seems pretty clear about that, as well as what I might daringly call common sense. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Break

@Jbmurray: "Cutsie" refers to the self-imposed arbitrary rules that some editors think it would be cute to enforce. That's exactly the kind of self-flagellation that is driving the editing of this article. All edits should be with the goal of improving the article, how does maintaining the lipogrammic style in the face of obfuscation and inaccuracy improve the article? The correction you made is fine with me, and I'm sure no one here has a problem with edits that improve the article. What is being objected to is that the article is suffering from this self-imposed restriction. You suggest that I may find the original work a "gimmick" as well, well it is. Wright admits that it's a gimmick, The Blah Story is a gimmick too. Gimmicks are used all the time in novels, no one's debating their use in that medium. I'm not even objecting to this article - I'm objecting to the self-imposition at the expense of clarity and accuracy. To create redirects for the sole purpose of obscuring the use of an "E"-word is not in the best interests of the article. To include blatantly incorrect information and hope links will clean it up is down-right under-handed. And with all the respect this article format is trying to pay the author, why would it be acceptable to not mention him by name? After reading the comments above I think you and Ed have a point; I couldn't care less if the article is in lipogrammatic style or not, so long as it's not inaccurate or obfuscated for the sake of that style. The article should come first, not the style. Padillah (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

party poopers

I think there are some people at wiki who either got beat up a lot in school...or should have.TCO (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Were there any personal attacks you had in mind or were you just generally attacking all other editors? Padillah (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone: to quote a cartoon rabbit, "if you can't say something nice [or constructive], don't say nothing at all". Let's be civil. María (habla conmigo) 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with this work, and saw this discussion just looking through random logs. I find such an idiosyncratic approach to writing about this topic particularly fitting. My thoughts: Wikiformatting such as for ¹ tags would not ruin it. But, broadly, I think mimicry of this work's particular idiosyncracy is okay. Anybody can intuit that most writing, syntax, and phrasing in discussion of this book (and not just our own) is faintly unnatural. And that's crucial. Our mimicry of this unnatural aura is an aid for anybody who is trying to grasp this work's most basic quirk. Omission of that glyph (most common glyph of all, is it not?) is intriguing and also a bit jarring. But it's okay, in my opinion, for us to try an unusual approach for such an unusual topic. As I said, a bit jarring, but worth living with. Avoid that glyph! On uncommon occasion I think it's a worthy goal to WP:IAR and do it with jazz and gusto! This is such an opportunity. --JayHank 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Similarly.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I lubz you guys! TCO (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When referring to WP:IAR, please remember the key part of the rule: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This lipogram is PREVENTING us from improving the article. Therefore the lipogram should be ignored.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit of clarification... This lipogram is not a policy of our Wiki. WP:IAR is about ignoring our own maxims and axioms and such. I admit that using this lipogram is a constraint of sorts. But I do not think that it stops us from improving or maintaining anything. It is primarily a constraint on writing. But for anybody looking up Gadsby, using this lipogram throughout, actually aids in grasping what is so significant about this work (for what it's worth, I do support limits: no lipogram in wikimarkup, infobox, citations, and so on). So I'm saying WP:IAR: it's not that this lipogram is policy--it's that this lipogram allows us to accomplish our goal of imparting important information about this topic with utmost quality (and not too narrowly assuming what words can do that). --JayHank 05:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot express how strongly I disagree that "for anybody looking up Gadsby, using this lipogram throughout, actually aids in grasping what is so significant about this work". Should we run off and write Le Train de Nulle Part without verbs? That's virtually the same argument, taken to an even further extreme. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not just to make a point Phoenixrod, you will see that it hand been done before. You could have left it for the regular editors of that page to decide whether they liked it or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that page has "regular" editors, since it had been edited all of once in the last year. But your edit introduced ungrammatical prose and left a sentence hanging unfinished. If jbmurrary wants to say I'm violating WP:POINT by reverting that, I just don't get it. You will see disagreement on the talk page there as well, so that's the kind of change that (even if done well) ought to be discussed before changing the current state of the article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can not understand you, party poop. Omit glyph, por favor! TCO (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

This is a proposal adapted from the_ed17's suggestions above. The idea is that the article should be improved (but of course) more or less in line with its current state, i.e. with the restriction against the letter "e," but with the following limits:

• The infobox can and should use the letter "e".
• The references can and should use the letter "e".
• coding can and should use the letter "e" (e.g. there's no restriction against <ref>)

Now, the_ed17 suggests that the lead could and should also use the letter "e." I'm less sure about that. What do we think? Discussion, suggestions welcome... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm okay with all of that. In my opinion, it's okay for our introduction to still omit that glyph. Piping "highly typical glyph" to that glyph subtly, but inconspicuously, shows what sort of word play is occurring in our writing, in writing by many authors who discuss this book, and most significantly in Wright's actual book! It is a critical insight! And, for what it's worth, I was just saying that I think it's okay to occasionally WP:IAR for this sort of thing (occasionally as in only 1 in a million or so :). -- JayHank 05:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one quick point: it's not okay to pipe E as "highly typical glyph". See WP:EGG, particularly this portion: Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on. Also remember that there are people who print the articles. Anyone printing or reading it quickly would miss the E. But I noted my objections to the intro above. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

True, there should be allowance made to somehow work in a blatant reference to the omission of the letter "E" specifically. This would go a long way to helping the reader understand what they are reading and why things are said that way. Maybe in the infobox or just in the lead, but it should be somewhere. Other than that I don't care what is done so long as it is not reliant on obfuscation or inaccuracy. Padillah (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My vote. To compromise, would allow e in the ref tag and in references. Would exlude it from the lede and the infobox.TCO (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How is that a compromise? Allowing REF tags is hardly a compromise on Wikipedia. REF tags of some sort are almost required in order to establish verifiability. And references that are incorrect are not references, so that's not much of a compromise either. Padillah (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Be fair. It's a compromise with regard to the article's current state. However, as I note below, a) "ref" tags are not required, as {{harvnb}} can do the same job; but b) eliminating "e" from the coding is basically impossible. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all in favor of this. It is an encyclopedia, not an inside- or April Fool's joke. That the novel does so is splendid, but none of us here are Vin Wright, Perec or Bök, and this isn't a novel; it is an encyclopedia. The article is to tell us about the subject matter, not reiterate it. In a way, doing such would be just as in-universe as talking about Batman or the Power Puff Girls as if they were real. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No lipograms The book is a lipogram. That's great. Some people like that, and want to emulate it. That is also great. Unfortunately, this is not the place to do it. I appreciate that most people who edit this article are going to be fans of this book, and want this article to be an homage to the writing style. I'm sorry, but this is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. We should be striving to describe the book and its impact to our readers in the most uncontrived, natural, direct, and easy-to-understand way possible. Restricting ourselves artificially gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the text of the article being a lipogram as I feel it makes the world a better place and the encyclopaedia a more interesting, higher quality work. Lipogrammed references are a bad idea for attribution reasons, however, as while lipogramming article text is not an act of falsification, doing likewise to references is. the skomorokh 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

References

• I've just gone through the references, and I have to say that I'm more convinced than ever of the need to use the letter "e" here. I hadn't realized just how distorted some of them were. I've reformatted them, for now keeping the lipogram as the discussion is ongoing (and hence reverted this edit). But I'm strongly in favour of using "e" for this, at least. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Coding

• I've also turned all citations (well, I've probably missed a few) into {{harvnb}} templates. That means that those that wish can eschew <ref> and </ref>. But frankly the article was inconsistent in the first place, as it used {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite news}}. I've turned all these into {{citation}} (so that {{harvnb}} would work), ironically and rather unintentionally thereby improving the lipogrammatic quality of the article's coding. On the other hand, I introduced "year" fields for all the citations. But omitting "e" in the coding is indeed silly, not least because it would mean that most of the urls were malformed. Again, then, I'm more convinced than ever that removing the "e" from the coding is pointless. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point this out

I just discovered today that this isn't the only article that's been lipogrammed. A Void also has. Some of you probably already knew that, I imagine, but others didn't. Going through the history of the article you can see that at one point there was a chapter-by-chapter plot summary of the novel, though even then it wasn't as long as the one in this article ... although this one gets helped by the fact that it has a list of names taken from the book for which the lipogram restriction is trivial. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's simply not true. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What's not true? The names section? Sure it is. Most of the names section is taken up by the names themselves, and many of the descriptions are taken from the book too. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not true that the A Void article is a lipogram. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well what I meant was that the main body of it (the plot summary) was lipogrammed for a while last year. But now, all that's left of that section is one paragraph. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that article. Perhaps we need a larger discussion somewhere, then, about whether Wikipedia should follow writing constraints when writing about texts that employ those contstraints? That might centrally deal with Gadsby (book), A Void, and Le Train de Nulle Part. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note that Phoenixrod, in violation himself of WP:POINT, summarily undid the revisions to Le Train de Nulle Part. I fail to see how Phoenixrod is improving any of these articles, by repeatedly stamping his or her feet and telling us how he or she doesn't like it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

CIVILITY PLEASE! THIS IS NO BIG DEAL!!! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 20:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed being civil. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was being civil as well. If not, I apologize. But jbmurray, please look again at that diff I reverted; it was clearly not an improvement, as I noted above in reply to Martin Hogbin. Can we please either keep the discussion on Gadsby or centralize a way to discuss all the writing-contraint articles? -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that all you did is revert. (And now drop a warning on the talk page!) Edit warring and threats hardly constitute constructive collaborative editing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for not explaining further at the time, but the edit was clearly a response to discussion here and in fact made the article worse. I didn't think I needed to explain further. And I see no problem with posting a message on the talk page that asks for discussion before removing the verbs from an article. Come on; that's just plain silly. What are you now, my WikiStalker? :) (That was a joke, in case it wasn't clear.) Martin and I can hash out our own separate dispute, but he doesn't need a champion in another article's talk page. I suggest we either drop the matter or take it to user talk. Thank you. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick addendum: I don't see any "warnings" or "threats". What I said was "Please discuss first". I think that is a reasonable request, and fully in line with how we were supposed to operate on Wikipedia. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, look at what those revisions were to Le Train de Nulle Part. There's a big difference between strange word choice (here) and the blatantly ungrammatical edits that Phoenix reverted at Le Train. If supporting the lipogram at Gadsby means I'm also supporting an ungrammatical and incomprehensible article at Le Train then my enthusiasm for doing so here will quickly diminish. --JayHenry (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's separate out these two articles, eh? But really, the other is just a stub. In fact, removing the verbs hardly changed anything. But that's another matter entirely. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. My changes to Le Train de Nulle Part were a little mischievous, although you will see from the 'history' page that it was not the first time that it had been done. Let us now leave it to the regulars on that article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We apparently still have plenty to do here. :) -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Okay, I'm going to suggest what appears to be a concensus on one sub-section of the discussion: citations. Does anyone object to fixing the references section to include complete and correct citation? What I mean is, for example, linking to Douglas Hofstadter instead of "H, Douglas Richard". My sense is that almost everyone agrees we should follow the typical methods of citing that don't give blatantly incorrect information. But I will respect the current state of the article and not make the changes myself until others have a chance to chime in. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said, I agree with this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To start with, I think having correct references is critical to the article being taken seriously and even to various points in the article being validated. I do want to mention, I do not support and Wikipedia cannot abide any blatantly incorrect assertions. This includes clever redirects, fanciful nick-names, and redefining words that serve the sole purpose of maintaining the lipogrammic style. I don't care what style you are writing in if it's false, it has no business in the article. There is no amount of consensus that will support incorrect information in Wikipedia. Padillah (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And I strongly feel the References section needs to be brought back. "Attributions" doesn't quite cover it. Also, "Reference" sections are supported by wiki-code and are much easier to maintain. Padillah (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But this is quite wrong. We may want to discuss how we incorporate these reformatted references, but there's certainly no one way of doing it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is "wrong"? That the "References" section is supported by wiki-code? That "Attributions" is not the same as "References"? That wikified references are easier to maintain than those done by hand? What exactly are you objecting to? Padillah (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the entire wiki is supported by wiki-code; the References section no more and no less; there's no particular need to do things one way or another.

Meanwhile, the References are "wikified," if by that in fact you meant that they should use templates. (Not that there's any injunction on the use of templates anywhere in the encyclopedia.) But I've noted this already. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

I agree with having the references be correct. Leave the lipogram in the main article. It is crucial that references themselves be correct. It does not matter if the heading is lipogrammed to "Citations" or whatever. But names and titles, should be correct.  :-) TCO (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of the apparent concensus on this issue, I have updated the "Attributions" section to more accurately reflect the sources. I probably missed some things, though, so please check them thoroughly. I'm done for today (and I might take a couple days off this article to collect my thoughts). -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus /compromise

Based on what I have read I am going to suggest the following approach.

The main text of the article should remain a lipogram but references, footnotes, and infoboxes should not.

Indeed. This is the same as the proposal above. I still support it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to steal your idea. I meant to say,'...what I have read above...' referring to your section. I was just trying to make it absolutely clear to all.

Heh. Don't worry about "stealing" the idea, as I was merely pointing out what the_ed17 had suggested. However, it does seem that on this talk page the same discussions come up over and over without being fully resolved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. But how do we come up with a compromise when the people willing to compromise (including myself) aren't willing to compromise on the same stuff the others are? How do we move this forward? (see below) Padillah (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We've actually moved on significantly, if you haven't noticed. Meanwhile, compromise means not harping on the whole time, as you are, with your sour grapes. Why not try to improve the article, eh? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This in response to a post about how arguments are being repeated. You might want to read your own press. As for my "sour grapes" I've no idea what you are talking about. I would love to improve the article but I can't make heads nor tales of what is supposed to be done. You have said "...the "Characters" section is useless, being simply a list of names." TCO has asked that it be gotten rid of, so I take it upon myself to gt rid of it and you revert saying it was never a consensus. Every edit I have made to this page you have reverted and I'm beginning to wonder if there is an edit I can make to this article that would appease you. If you want my help so badly, accept it. Padillah (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For those that want a lipogram.

I do not know what Wright's reasons were for writing the book in the way that I did but I suspect that it was a mixture of fun and to show what could be done. In the case of a complete Wikipedia article, it cannot be done without mangled names and silly redirects and other horrible kludges. Writing the article as a lipogram is a bit of fun, it is not a matter or religious observance or necessity.

For those who do not want one.

Several readers have commented that they did not realise that the article was a lipogram at first and that they found it exciting when this fact dawned on them. It may be the same with readers of the book. In that way writing the article as a lipogram achieves far more that simply stating that fact, however clearly that is done. If a novel can be written without the letter E then I am sure that some explanatory text can also.

Summary In doing things the way I suggest we can write a good quality article that has some of the spirit of the book. Then we can all work together to improve the article. Could a lipogrammatic article get FA status? Surely it is worth a try. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you say, "Several readers have commented that they did not realise that the article was a lipogram at first and that they found it exciting when this fact dawned on them." That is true, but the reverse is also true: several readers have commented that they had trouble reading the article and found it not worthwhile to keep reading. Why privilege the one that is obviously more roundabout? Do we really want to drive away readers?

But that's not really critical at the moment. Here is my main point: I like the idea of a compromise, but I think the execution needs to be a bit broader. After reading the article on A Void, I have to say that I would be okay with what has been done there. One section of the article is a lipogram, and the rest isn't. If we do that here, then the references are fine with E's, the author's name is full and correct, the introduction mentions in plain English why the book is notable—and there is still room for a lipogram in one or more body sections of the article. What say you all? -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For me that's a step too far. But I totally agree that this article could be much improved. It should absolutely be readable, and to read well. As others have intimated, the "Characters" section is useless, being simply a list of names. I'm slowly trying to read the book itself, so I can improve the article. Others who have read it should feel free meanwhile to jump in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with jbmurray we should be able to make the whole of the main text a lipogram and still make it good. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is all about the difference between the way English literature is taught and the way it should be taught. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin, can you explain that last part? I'm not sure I understand the relevance. What does the teaching literature have to do with how we write this article? -Phoenixrod (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It was just a late night thought. An article that describes what a lipogram is in plain language gets the reaction 'who cares' from many people, rather like school English lessons. Writing the article as a lipogram captures some of the spirit, mischief, and perversity of the author. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the step too far for you, jbmurray? Making a non-lipogram in the introduction? -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like the infobox to be lipogramitic. TCO (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I see it, the purpose of the lipogrammatic constraint is to illustrate, in a way that mere description cannot, what lipogrammatic prose is like. This illustration has substantial encyclopedic/didactic value, in my opinion. But there's no didactic value that I can see in applying the lipogram to non-prose sections such as an infobox, wikiformatting, or references. If we apply it to the infobox, I think it's a fair criticism that we're just being cutesy. That leaves the introduction. My preference would be for a lipogrammatic introduction. The only real issues as I see it are Vin vs. Edward and highly typical glyph vs. "the letter e". Personally I think the encyclopedic value of the lipogram is valuable enough to make it worth applying WP:IAR to WP:EGG. --JayHenry (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A lipogram is suitable for prose but makes nonsense of other sections.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem for me is that the novel itself already "illustrates" a lipogram, and we link to it and quote from it in the body sections of the article. We don't need to "illustrate" more than that, just as we don't need to "illustrate" a book written in Spanish by writing the article in Spanish.

While I still think it's excessively "cutesy" to have the lipogram at all, I think I could accept it in the body of the article. But ignoring various policies like WP:EGG, to me, doesn't have encyclopedic value here. We have a duty to be accurate with our facts. Other sites copy Wikipedia without the markup and links; people read articles without clicking or hovering over all the links. If we perpetrate what amounts to an WP:OR name for the author or in any way disguise his real name, we are being disingenuous. The same goes for not mentioning that the book lacks an E. Even Gadsby directly acknowledges this fact; why can't we do likewise? If our goal is to be "didactic" (your word, JayHenry) in the first place, then we should instruct rather than solely illustrate. At least in the introduction. It's good to both instruct and illustrate—but if all we do is illustrate, then it's like giving the reader a bunch of information without giving the connecting thread. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree about being accurate with our facts. But I don't see highly typical glyph or Vin Wright as inaccuracies (especially if Ernest Vincent Wright is in the infobox. I won't throw a fuss if consensus is to have e's in the lead. But as for didactic, I picked the word because it has broader connotations than explain or even instruct. I'm not arguing that highly typical glyph is more direct than "the letter e". Clearly not. I disagree that we must always be as direct as possible (as if our reader is as stupid as possible). I think sometimes we can be clever, a bit circuitous, and that it will benefit our reader. That they will understand and understand better. That they will not only learn facts, but will be even a little bit inspired. (I fully recognize how horribly unfashionable it is to say that sort of thing on Wikipedia circa 2008. Rage, rage against the dying of the light, I say.) --JayHenry (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with highly typical glyph the immediate context makes it obvious what is going on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

....no "Vin Wright". He isn't known by that name! Let's just use his last name in place of that. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Already done.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

JayHenry, The problem with that outlook is that, since Wikipedia is a public resource, it's entirely possible that the person reading this article is as stupid as possible.

Martin, "highly typical glyph" is only apparent because you are viewing this as a web page and have the obvious benefit of the links to elucidate the meaning of the phrase. If you were visually impaired and tried to have the article read to you, I think you'd have a different outlook. That's why WP:EGG exists, to discourage the obfuscation of information from users that don't have the opportunity to read the article on the web with links intact.

The text is now 'a particularly common glyph' which is quite descriptive and correct. WP is based on links, and if were having the article read to me, I might ask the reader to pursue any of interest; all that is needed in this case is to hover the mouse. I am not suggesting that we completely ignore WP:EGG just make the the occasional exception. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no benefit to be gained from writing more than a section or so in lipogrammic style. It gives the reader a taste of what is going on and if they are more interested, they can pick up a copy and read the novel (which was written and edited by better men than us). Padillah (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a lipogram, but it is not a very interesting one. The concept of a lipogram is trivial and anyone can easily produce one, an example is hardly necessary. What is notable and interesting is the concept of taking on the seemingly (but not actually) impossible task of writing a novel as a lipogram. Writing a complete, good quality, main section of this article as a lipogram is, in my opinion, also possible and we should give it a go. Writing the whole article as a lipogram is not possible without seriously degrading its quality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally admitting what I've been saying since I got here. Writing the main article as a lipogram, by your own admission, serves no positive purpose other than being interesting. Meanwhile the negatives it brings are obfuscation, circumlocution, alienation of editors, hidden Easter eggs, in-universe writing, and disruption to make a point. Yes, I can compromise if that's the only way to move this discussion forward, but to be honest I think the whole thing is ludicrous self-flagellation and needs to be done away with. Padillah (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have given up discussing the issues and simply restated your original case. That does not make you right. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I can't get over how patently ridiculous this entire discussion is. I understand we need to respect each other and work in consensus. This does not mean we all must entertain whatever random aberrant rules some editor feels they want to apply. Apparently I am mistaken, users can enforce whatever they can con others into supporting regardless of it's uselessness or farcicality. This entire situation is ridiculous. Padillah (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One last question: what about the Links section at the bottom of the page? Do we mention the authors full name there? Do we just omit the authors name since it's just another link to the wiki article for that author and isn't needed for the external link anyway? Padillah (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that only the main body of text should be a lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut "Charactors"!

It is padding. Short wiki is good wiki! Strunk's book says so! TCO (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Padillah thought there was consensus for this. But no. Clearly, an article of this sort should have a section about the major characters. The problem is that at present all we have is a list of all the characters. We should focus, expand, and develop this section, rather than cutting it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for moving forward

In deference to the fact that I have noticed a repetition of argument but no opening to move forward I suggest the following: I think we have established that the references and infobox are "lipogram free areas". (If that is not agreed on please let us know). I say we suspend discussion while the article gets cleaned up in accord with this new compromise, say 1 month. Then we can revisit and determine what issues are still outstanding. This gives those that want it time to improve the article without the blame of the past article interfering. What say yee? Padillah (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not compromise. You are going ahead with the part of the potential compromise that suits you whilst still reserving your position on that parts that do not. Let us all agree that the main text should be a lipogram and the rest not. That would be a compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're a little behind the times. This is all done already. What's most important now is to improve the article: flesh out the Characters section, for instance; get some better sources. All this focus on whether or not the article should contain the letter e is simply a distraction from that. I'm slowly reading the novel itself, but meanwhile those who've read it should jump in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, debating wiki-law while editors hold the page hostage is not the progress I was talking about. If the editors have reached consensus regarding the areas above then it was never made clear. I am getting moderately frustrated; when I make corrections to the article they are reverted because there is an ongoing discussion, so I ask that a decision be made and am told it's been made why not start editing. I will try to contribute now and see what happens. Padillah (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Marvellous. An end to the wikilawyering! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look! I made an edit and you reverted it. What a surprise. I'm sure you feel you have some reason but I really don't give a crap. You have successfully beaten me into submission, I will withdraw from the article you are more than welcome to OWN it. Padillah (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I pointed out the reason in my edit summary: per the MOS, we shouldn't be mixing citation styles. At present, we're using {{citation}}, not {{cite web}}. But if you look at the edit history, I think did what you were trying to do (consolidate the references), and did it in line with the MOS. Where's the problem? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And who decided that we were using that particular style of citation? Oh yeah, you. Padillah (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to use another; the point is not to mix them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll pardon me if I believe the article edit history instead. Padillah (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Change them to "cite x" if you wish; but change them all. (You do lose the funcionality of {{harvnb}}, but there we go.) I introduced {{harvnb}} to respond to problems that you consistently raised about the way in which the references were formatted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I remember it you made them {{harvnb}} in an effort to keep "E"-words out of the main body of the article. And if I remember correctly you've been doing it one at a time for two days now. Wish I had that kind of option. Padillah (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I changed them to add the functionality that (if I remember) you particularly wanted, while maintaining (more or less) the lipogram in code so long as discussion was ongoing. I then changed again to <ref> tags when consensus clearly moved towards doing so. I'll admit that I'm a fan of {{harvnb}} (see the other articles I edit!). But again, more important is to respect the MOS stipulation that there shouldn't be mixed modes of citation. That's all. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that's not what I was trying to do. But, like I said, you win. Padillah (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see this as some kind of contest. I'm merely trying to keep as much as possible within the terms of the MOS. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard not to when everything I do is contested. By a consensus of one. Every time. Padillah (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so. This is what's called collaborative editing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I thought WP:BRD was collaborative editing. Oh well. Padillah (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying to collaborate with you (and other editors) on this article, respecting talk page consensus. C'mon, you could give it a try, too! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Like I said, I may participate in some of the talk-page discussion but I'm done editing the article. You have wiki-lawyered me into submission. BTW: what I was trying to do was make following the references a single-click affair, not two-clicks like it is currently. If you would have done the "D" part of BRD you might have figured that out sooner. I guess you collaborate differently than I do.Padillah (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look. jbmurray reverted my edits again, without even looking. Wonder why I would start taking this personally? Could it be that even when I make an edit he should agree with he reverts it? Hmmm. Padillah (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look. Jbmurray reverted himself and apologized I'm not the one personalizing here, Padillah. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you could have AGF and read the edit before reverting it out of hand. It would have saved you the trouble. Like I said some people approach BRD in a different way than others. Padillah (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus or not?

Several editors seem to have moved from their original positions towards the compromise idea that all the main text should be a lipogram but nothing else should.

Who does not accept that as a consensus?

The book is a lipogram, why the article has to be is beyond reason. The article is about the book not it's extension. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember that some authors wanted the whole article (refs, info boxes etc) to be a lipogram. Do you not see this proposal as a possible compromise? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

After taking a few days away from Wikipedia, I still need to catch up on the recent activity on the talk page. But off the top of my head, I don't see that as a great compromise because it doesn't go far enough. While I still think the lipogram should be abandoned completely, I would grudgingly accept a lipogrammatic body of the article if the introduction mentions the full author's name and that the book lacks E. But that was my attempt at a compromise earlier—to say I accept that all the main text as a lipogram just isn't true. That said, we've come a long way since the days of hidden contents and blatantly wrong references, and I applaud that progress.

I've been trying to think of a new way of explaining my problem with the lipogram (because I'm sure everyone is tired of hearing the same postions ad nauseam). It's not that I don't appreciate the skill involved or the impulse to creatively "illustrate" what the book does, and I generally sympathize with JayHenry's raging against "the dying of the light". But to my mind, Wikipedia is simply not the place for that particular type of "light". User space or Uncyclopedia, sure.

Crucially for me, using the lipogram seems to stem from the same impulse that my writing students have: to "spice up" academic prose. Academic prose has fairly strict rules for organization and style, and violating those rules generally results in papers that fail to argue their positions effectively because they put style over content and lose track of clear expression. For me, using the lipogram in a Wikipedia article without clearly explaining it makes the same freshman mistake: it may be more "interesting", but it fails to meet the conventions that readers expect. And because we ultimately should be volunteering our time here for our readers, we should be focusing on what will be clearest for them, not on what entertains them best. Jbmurray, I expect you have graded more than a few papers of the type I am talking about. To be sure, I'm quite aware that Wikipedia is not an academic paper, but the FA standard of "professional prose" comes close. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Phoenixrod.

Here's my two cents: the article has indeed been transformed recently. In response to the serial challenges of lippogrammaticity (?), the "References," code, infobox, and so on have all be changed very radically. My fear is that those editors who are opposed to the lipogram, believing it to be a "farce" or whatever, will continue to try to wear the rest of us down with wikilawyering and threats etc.

More importantly, this article is indeed miles distant from FA standard. Indeed, even calling it C-class is generous, to say the least: the other day I was half-minded to downgrade it to B-class.

Interesting comment - especially in the light that B is a "higher" grade than C. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Well, good I didn't change the grading, then! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's not the lipogram that's standing in the way of article improvement. If anything, it's the fact that (as far as I can tell) nobody here has actually read the book. And if you want to raise student errors in papers, well that's number one, and attempts at stylish flourishes are much less of a concern to me in my day-to-day life...

So most obviously, for instance, the Characters section needs to be significantly improved. At present it's just a list.

After that, I suspect the sources could be improved. I haven't done much in that regard, except checking out the current sources (and deleting a few truly useless ones); I suspect that better ones are out there, though perhaps they are few and far between.

Gradual improvement should get this article to deserve it's C-status, and then perhaps (why not?) somewhere near GA.

As to whether one could write an FA in lipogram... That would surely be tough. (But then Gadsby itself, so far as one can tell, is far from being an FA-class novel!) However, we're some distance from worrying about that eventuality. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From the various polls taken it is clear that the majority of editors favour a lipogram. Despite that there have been changes to the article to remove the lipogram from the references and info boxes; this was done in the spirit of compromise which has not been reciprocated by those against. If we are ever to conclude this argument there will need to be movement on both sides. So far only one side (the lipogrammists) has made any effort. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I take exception to the representation that editors who don't favor the lipogram have made no concessions. It only appears as though the lipogramatic editors have been the only ones to give ground simply because the entire article (including hidden code and URLs) was a lipogram and there was nowhere else to go but toward the non. Ground has been conceded in the form of NOT changing the entire article, body and all, to non-lipogramic text. None of the non-lipogramatic editors have made any attempt to rewrite the article, even in the face of rather severe opinions. Maybe some of the bad feelings on this page would quell if more recognition were forthcoming. I'm not advocating throwing a party, but at least try and maintain some good faith. Padillah (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What concessions have you made? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view even listening to this codswallop is a concession. I am discussing, not simply edit-warring to rewrite the article body. I have, in point of fact, conceded the entire act of editing the article. What further concession do you suggest I make? Put the info boxes, references, and hidden code back the way they were? What do you want from us? You have the volume at 100 we want it at 10, we compromise on 70 and you have the nerve to say we're not making any concessions. Wow. Padillah (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you accepting that the body of the article be lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, I'm accepting that this is a compromise that can be supported by both points of view. Given the strong POV shown by a few editors on this page I want to make the distinction between accepting the idea of compromise and accepting the situation. I think this is an important distinction to make in these discussions. I will compromise, but I can't "accept" the article as a lipogram, can you see the distinction? Padillah (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I never said that I wanted a lipogram...I said that a compromise I'd live with would be a lipogram in just the main text. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people will not get exactly what they want, but we do seem to have arrived at a workable compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am reading the book, slowly, at Wikisource and will be able to help more to that end. Perhaps contributions that are non-lipograms could be allowed under the assumption that they would be rephrased neatly in lipogram.Synchronism (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

propsoal that Gadsby wiki talk is lippogramatic

It will stir contras to joy to bind talk to glyph omittion. TCO (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That, buddy, is going too far. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good for "bird from ash": vicarious.TCO (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

? —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd find it incivil if this if I. lipi' is in right, and all other variants are disallowed ... as is giving trolls food, at least in this part of the forest ... lipogrammatic is a portmantow'? no? I'd still like to see a special e-less page to display this article somewhere. New wiki Lipopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synchronism (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You can type whatever you want, but the first person to revert my talkpage comments for such a stupid reason as "they are not a lipogram" is going straight to AN/I. That the article is written this way is a complete farce, the talk page must promote discussion. Padillah (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —Ed 17 _{(Il Viquipedista)}— 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I third that, completely. It would be disruptive and entirely discriminatory. There's nothing wrong with using artistic constraints, as long as it is not counterproductive or used to exclude.Synchronism (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this suggestion by TCO might be a wind up?? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Before I saw JJBs posts I might have wondered, but with the resistance I've seen on this page I give it a 50/50 shot at being a real suggestion. Padillah (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Walk talk. Moccasin-mimicing for party poops is good. TCO (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And "17" should go to "17" to comply! TCO (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you please talk normally? It is impossible to understand what you are trying to say....thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - the point people are making at the base of their argument against the lipogramatic article idea. And then the guy goes and gets coarse! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

strain your brain, ya turd! TCO (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

@Martin - See? Padillah (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Two glyphs. You R a bad boy!  :-) TCO (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to get any support but here goes...

I know this isn't going to get any support but I'll try anyways. One of the big arguments on the "non-lipogrammic" side is that describing the lipogram is made extremely difficult without being allowed to mention the "letter that is left out". Well, consider that lipograms are word-based, in other words "e" is not a word. Mathematical symbol, yes. Physics symbol, yes. Letter, yes. Word, no. Therefore, the phrase "Gadsby is a book with no words containing 'e' " is a lipogram. We can stick to the lipogram and still mention this fact. Since "e" itself is not a word it's not against the lipogram. Padillah (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Only a moron would not understand 'common glyph'. TCO (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling me a moron then? I didn't understand what that meant when I first read the article...and I'm pretty sure that that is the same for everyone. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you, me and many others. Don't take it personally. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TCO, you are not helping. In fact, you are only hindering the discussion. If you don't have anything of a constructive nature to contribute to the conversation, I suggest you cool it. You already have one two warnings for civility on your talk page. Perhaps you shouldn't go looking for another. María (habla conmigo) 18:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

@TCO: Oh, you mean the Cyrillic "Й"? Or the Greek "ε"? Oh, using the Arabic alphabet. So surly you mean "a" the most popular letter in Turkish. Or would you mean "S" since that is the most common letter to start a word? Your right, how could I have missed that? Padillah (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also strongly against any lipogrammatic style in regards to an encyclopedic article, but I'm not sure I follow you, Padillah. The novel does not contain the letter "e" at all, whether it be the letter by itself or a word that contains it. I could see how people may think that using "e" would not mesh with the lipogram. However, like I said, I'm completely against the article being a lipogram, period. The only place I may see it being even slightly appropriate would probably be the plot section. María (habla conmigo) 18:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A lipogram is any prose that doesn't use words spelled with any specific letter. It's not that the prose doesn't contain the letter, it doesn't contain words that use that letter. And, since "e" is a letter and not a word, we should be able to use it and still have a lipogram. Padillah (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Within introduction, Vin avoids bad glyph by lipo wording, but still has allusion to it...thus killing Pad's point!!! TCO (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC) TCO (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a clever idea, but I'm afraid I don't buy it. Wright literally tied down the E typebar of his typewriter to ensure that the letter would not appear in his book at all. To convince me, you'd have to show me some authoritative definitions of the word "lipogram," and some examples of things generally accepted as lipograms that avoid the banned letter within words but allow it within other contexts.

I notice that this source defines "lipogram" as "A text that purposefully excludes a particular letter of the alphabet," nothing word-based there. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wright's uses of E

I note that Wright did tie down the E type-bar on his typewriter by his own admission in the novel's introduction. In fact, his introduction to the novel contains loads of that letter. If Wright used E in his introduction, why should we go further than even he did? Let me quote Wright's own words for a moment, again from the book's introductory section:

1. "A rapid-talking New York newspaper columnist wanted to know how I would get over the plain fact that my name contains the letter E three times. As an author's name is not a part of his story, that criticism did not hold water." Wright doesn't believe his name is part of the story and is therefore exempt from a lipogram. Even if we go so far as to copy his style, we should follow his lead on his own name and spell it out in full.
2. "Other criticism may be directed at the Introduction; but this section of a story also is not part of it. The author is entitled to it, in order properly to explain his work." We should feel similarly: our Wikipedia introduction must also "explain [our] work", and therefore it should be exempt from the lipogram. Wright's introduction lays out his purpose and challenges with the lipogram; let's do the same.

As I said earlier, I don't like the lipogram in a Wikipedia article to begin with, but I could live with it in the body. I think Wright's own project makes it clear, however, that he wouldn't support having a lipogrammatic introduction. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I do agree with much of what has been said here.Synchronism (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The equivalent to the introduction in the book would be the info-box in this article, which most agree should not be a lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? An info-box isn't the introduction, and it's nowhere near as extensive as complete sentences. The introduction of our article is most akin to the introduction of the novel (I would think that near-tautology would be pretty obvious). Besides, even if you were right, then the infobox should mention that the novel doesn't contain an E in the main text, following Wright. -Phoenixrod (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If course the info-box is not actually an introduction; this article is not a novel. However, in many ways the info-box is an equivalent to the introduction in a novel. The introduction to novel is an information-giving section of different style (non-fiction) from the novel itself. It is typically less than 1% of the total book. That makes it closer to the info-box here. The lead section of this article is more like the first chapter of a novel.

You might like this suggestion. Is it possible to add something along the lines of, 'Style: Lipogram, omitting the letter "E" ' to the info box?Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are neither required nor mandatory for GA/FA, and I personally don't see them as essential to any Wikipedia article, regardless of its subject matter. As for the lead section, per WP:LEAD it should be a summary of the entire article; this makes it more analogous to a book's introduction, as that also typically sums up the work as a whole. We can continue to split hairs on this issue, but my point is that if any part of the article were to include the fact that the novel omits the letter "e", it would be the introduction, not the infobox. In fact, a "Style" section would be an indispensable addition to the article; there, a discussion of the lipogram could be detailed in full and then summed up in the lead. María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It was only an idea. I was trying to find ways round specific weaknesses of the article in its lipogrammatical form. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One way around that "weakness" (your word) is to drop the style altogether. Why impose arbitrary rules? (Oh comon, you had to know this was going to be the reply) Padillah (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Martin: yes, I think that adding something to the infobox would be better than what we currently have. But I'm with Maria in that there's no good substitute for putting E in the introduction. I just don't understand why we wouldn't try to meet GA/FA standards all along the writing process even if the rest of the article isn't close to FA yet, as jbmurray said above. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it too late to vote?

I admit that I did not read the whole discussion on this page, but I would vote to Keep as a lipogram. I just discovered this article today and had read partway through before it dawned on me. You could think of it as a meta-description of the book. I think that it is sad that people want to change it given that it is, even as a lipogram, much clearer and more informative than many other articles here on the Wiki. People who don't know will simply click on the "a most common glyph" link. It's a lovely article as is (today, as of the time of my writing this) and I am sorrowed that people wish to undo the brilliant work that has been done here. Saudade7 18:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First, it's never too late to add to the discussion. Second, no one is arguing that it's not very creative. We're arguing that Wikipedia is not the place to be creative. If editors feel the need to write a review of the lipogram as a lipogram, feel free (several critics have, from what I understand). This being an encyclopedia it's inappropriate. Do you honestly think you'd find an article in EB written as a lipogram? Odds are good you would not. As far as the link to the letter "E", it's not a good idea to base an article on hidden meaning (and it comes close to cheating on the lipogram, it's the same as misspelling words so you can use them anyways). Padillah (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But it does seem that the article's being a lipogram adds something to it which cannot easily be expressed in plain words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And I've had users comment on my talk page about the "something " it adds...

“ Still on the same subject, so no new section. If you don't want people to improve the article, perhaps people that ARE allowed to edit it should place a <! comment in the article to that effect. It's kind of annoying to try to make writing not suck hard, only to have my edits be reverted for sake of an in-joke. 76.22.79.109 (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ”

That these people don't see the point in dealing with arbitrary rules for the sake of having arbitrary rules doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because they don't feel like participating in the "mess" that's been made of this talk page doesn't mean they support the lipogrammic style. Padillah (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "mess that's been made of this talk page" but the majority of comments on this page have clearly been in favour of a lipogram, those that do not comment here do indeed run the risk of being ignored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right. That just helps point out that we are not writing this for the editors on this talkpage. We are writing it for casual readers, and they are going to be forced to deduce most of the article even after having read the article. P.S. The "mess that's been made of this talk page" refers mostly to the poorly written lipogramic entries that some editors insist on forcing others to decipher. Padillah (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't see a "clear majority" in favor of the lipogram. All I see is that there are quite a few vocal editors with diverse views on the lipogram, and I'm starting to wonder if what will happen is that people will get bored hitting their heads against a wall and leave the page. I don't know what to do at this point. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I've continuously said, rather than wikilawyering on the part of those who are against the lipograms, it would be grand if people would actually improve the article. The preconditions for that, at this stage, are probably reading the book and/or looking for more and better sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is sad, anti-s who party poop a wiki, only for law-following. TCO (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Do you honestly think you'd find an article in EB written as a lipogram?" -- Well, I cannot comment on that, but I can comment on what I think of the EB...as a doctoral candidate who has done extensive archival research on certain 19th century figures, I can tell you that many of the "expert" editors of articles in the EB base most of their "research" on secondary or tertiary sources written in the 1980s. One article on my primary subject was almost completely wrong. Which is to say that Lipogram or not, the EB is nothing to base our standards or values on. The question is "does this article convey the necessary information in a clearly understood manner?" and I think it does. In fact, I wish that some of the overly-technical articles on the Wiki e.g. certain chemistry and drug articles, had a section for laymen that was as clearly written as this lipogrammatic (?) article. I like that it shows as well as tells what the book is like. Two forms of information for the price of one! (Caveat: I am not super-emotionally attached to this article, so please do not Wiki-stalk me if you disagree with my views). Saudade7 22:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Saudade7, not to get all hair-splitting, but I think there may be a little confusion as to what you mean by "Keep as a lipogram". Which version of the lipogram do you think should be kept? For example, the current state of the article, the body only (with an introduction that uses E), the old state of the article with lipogrammed references and infobox? Hidden "edit section" buttons? Some other mixture? My impression is that most editors could live with some form of compromise (yet to be determined...), so which version of the lipogram do you think works best? -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely a consensus

After my section above 'Consensus or not? there were three dissenting replies one of which was fairly accepting of a lipogrammatic body.

The vote at the top of this page went: '...totals by my rough count: 48 favoring, 33 (including vandals; plus four probably socks) against. A goodly majority of all chiming in favor a lipogram'.

I am therefore proposing that the suggestion made several times earlier that: all the main body of text should be a lipogram but nothing else should be, is accepted a a consensus by all.

There are still views being put ranging from a complete lipgram, including links, talk page, info box, references etc to no lipogram at all. It is clear that all editors are not going to get exactly what they want but I believe that this is as close as we will ever get to a consensus. I therefore urge everyone to accept the suggestion above and work on improving the article on that basis. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:DEFINECONSENSUS, consensus is not based on votes. Similarly, if it were about votes, I would disagree with the inclusion of those opinions that were cast more than three years ago, when Wikipedia was a far different place than it is now. Priorities have changed, the manual of style has evolved, etc, etc. Because whatever conclusion we come to here may affect other lipogram-related articles, perhaps outside community discussion is what is needed in order to reach consensus. María (habla conmigo) 20:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am part of the outside community, I came here in response to the RFC. I have read WP:DEFINECONSENSUS and agree that consensus is not just about votes but note that it is also not about unanimity. There is nothing more that can be done to achieve a consensus and there will always be dissenters on both sides. If you look back through this page you will see that my suggestion has been put several time before. It represents a reasonable compromise and the best consensus we will ever get. The only alternative is to continue arguing for ever. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And I agree that the article needs to be improved but can you not see that this conflict goes directly to the ability to do that? If I can't edit the page for fear of breaking the lipogram than how can I improve the article? If random anons drop by to fix spelling only to have their efforts reverted because of arbitrary rules placed on the article, how can we expect them to continue? In short, how can we evoke support for editing the article when we hamper editing of the article? Padillah (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hidden guidance? Padillah makes a good point though. If IP (or any) edits are beneficial and/or constructive but perhaps not lipogramatic per this proposed consensus then we have to assume good faith, so outright reversion seems as though it'd be inappropriate.–Synchronism (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I take it that you support the consensus if that problem could be resolved? I am not quite sure how it works but someone suggested hidden comments. I see no problem with this, what is important is that the displayed text is a lipogram.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that to Padillah, Maria or me? What about JBMurray? I support the consensus if such dissonance is addressed... Synchronism (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is also going to affect our ability to identify and deal with vandalism because we've just added a type of vandal that AN/I may not support. If someone just decides not to restrict their edits what recourse do we really have? Will AN/I or even ArbCom support this? We've put ourselves in the awkward position of having to accept and correct whatever "e-centric" vandalism is done to the page with no viable recourse. As for supporting a consensus I would like for the introduction sentence to at least maintain the accepted format of "Gadsby: Champion of Youth by author Ernest Vincent Wright is a lipogrammic book that omits words containing the letter 'e' (as does the rest of this article). ". This style of intro seems to be pretty well established and if written correctly can contain the writers full name and the style in one sentence so you'd only really be giving up one sentence out of the entire article. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Example of hidden guidance

[ Ernest Vincent Wright/Wright]'s book Gadsby: Champion of Youth is a 1939 work of fiction that puts forth an account of goings on in a fictitious city, "Branton Hills." Its topic is how youth's vigor can transform an urban community that is stuck in moribund sloth. Protagonist Gadsby, a man of fifty or so, calls to his town's girls and boys to aid him in his plan to bring activity and vitality back to that vicinity.

This story of about 50,000 words is most famous as a notably ambitious lipogram, in that it painstakingly omits a most common glyph [(e)/(E)/not at all] from all of its paragraphs. It is an inspiration to similar vanguard authors; books such as A Void follow in its tracks.

*Begin lipogram restriction*

Main Body

*End lipogram restriction*

That looks good to me except that you have sneaked in 'Ernest Vincent' and '(e)'. I think most editors are against that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I like this a lot better. No confusion, and the lipogram has a place for the editors who are arguing for it. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's good but we'd need several of those throughout the article. At least every section (since you can edit a section without being exposed to the main article body). And, if a section gets particularly long, even more often to keep people in mind of the restriction. This still won't allow us to prosecute vandals as well as we could without the rule. Warnings or not there's no way to tell if this will have any support from anyone outside this page. Padillah (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that this is a limitation that borders on fandom and restricts normal academic editing of wikipedia. Against the essence of wikipedia. Even amounts to "Original Research". We need to be able to quote freely from scholarly source etc. as needed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We can quote - as footnotes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think a non-lipogrammatical introduction is liked by many. The pro-lipogram editors have conceded much since I have been here - it is time to give a little from the other side. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lipogram made explicit in info-box

I have added that the novel omits the letter 'E' in the info box. I am not sure that it looks nice the way that I have done it, what do others think? Perhaps there is a better way to do the same thing such as adding a 'style' field to the info box.

I have done this to stave off those who want a non-lipogram introduction, which to my mind spoils the whole point of making the article a lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

d'accord. Ils sont mouvais. TCO (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A Suggestion

I realize that this may be a bit late, but I want to make a suggestion. A lipogrammatic version of the article can be created at Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth/Lipogram Version, where it can be edited and have any prose issues fixed there. The main article should be changed to a version that is at least more easily readable (without using awkward phrasing to get around the "e restriction", but not to the point that it would be Simple English), for the sake of the readers that find the article difficult to decipher. I'm not trying to get rid of the lipogram, but I do think that there are issues with the prose due to the lipogram that could be handled without affecting the main article that readers do see. 71.200.39.246 (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have nothing against two articles. Let's see who does a better job! Why not? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea as well, although not a new one. (Several people above suggested having different versions.) But how would we include both in Wikipedia? If one is in user space or in a link from the "main" article, it's clearly going to be less "favored". Would it be acceptable to have one as Gadsby: Champion of Youth and another as Gadsby: Champion of Youth (lipogram)? Or the second one as Gadsby: Champion of Youth (non-lipogram)? -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We have reached a consensus, the last thing we want to do is start the whole argument all over again from the start.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If some editors wish to go down the suggested route then a fairer and better way to do it would be to keep this site (which represents a general consensus) as it is but add development sites such as Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth/Full Lipogram Version or Talk:Gadsby: Champion of Youth/No-Lipogram Version. If any of these ever reach the stage where there is a general consensus that they are better than the current site then they could replace it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. 71.200.39.246 (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I diasagree. This is just opening hte thing up again. Also this user should read the previous discussion and engage. Not blunder in and suggest something that has already been discussed as if its new...while ignoring the previous discussion. That's not intelligent discussion...it's just restatement. TCO (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The best this could do is end with one supported version and the other as a POV fork. If we're gonna improve the article let's improve one article. Padillah (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Let's keep it one article. More fun to fight that way. Oops, I mean constructively engage to improve the encyclopedia which will be the sum of all human knowledge. Wink, wink. TCO (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To make my position clear, I also agree that we should have one article, as I stated above. My suggestion was simply that if we were to have additional development articles it should not be done in the way originally proposed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there's very little improvement of any kind going on: simply squabbling on the talk page and kneejerk reverts (as I have admitted, I've been guilty of this at times, too) on the article.

The anti-lipogram folk continue to state their position with some vehemence and no little ressentiment, and seem to be claiming that it's the lipogram that is preventing their improving the article. Well, let's create at least a sandbox for them to build a better article, using the letter "e." I think it would be to everyone's benefit if they could show how the article could be expanded and developed.

The pro-lipogram folk have less excuse, of course. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of people

How about we scrap the list of people? If not, we should reorganize it to be in alpha order by last name (LN, FN format) and get rid of the indentation for children. I really don't think the list adds much to the article. Who wants to read through it. I think with Harry Patter and such there are such lists because in reality the wiki is being used for universe detailing. But no need here. TCO (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the thing is to flesh it out... so it's less list-like. Any good article on a novel has a discussion of the characters. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think so. I think many good articles have a plot summary which contains within it, the basics about the most important characters as part of that prose. But no need for a list. TCO (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully bow out.

I only bring this up as evidence of what is occurring in this article. I am leaving the article and talk page. I've been ABF'ed one too many times. It's become clear to me that, regardless of the talk page, I am being targeted. I think I'll direct my efforts elsewhere. I just wanted this page to understand, the attitudes here are driving editors away. Padillah (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stay and play. TCO (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What is ABF? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Assume bad faith, I assume. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Padillah, I'm sorry to see you go, although I think I understand precisely how you feel. I'd like to note that most editors who have posted against the lipogram (to whatever degree) have left or gone silent in the face of vocal opposition from (dare I say) a relatively small number of editors. Maybe I'm way off base and I'm going out on a mind-reading limb here, but I suspect they are not discussing because they feel their position is self-evidently the best course and it's not worth their time engaging in "play", as TCO calls it. I've left for several days at a time myself for these reasons. If most of the people left want to ignore all rules and keep the current version of the lipogram, I guess that's their prerogative.

But I doubt the issue of the lipogram will magically go away (especially if anyone ever wants to promote the article to GA/FA status)..... -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more - in other words the lipogram (in the article) is not best practice at wikipedia and is really against the spirit of the project. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree that it's against the spirit of the project. WP:IAR is one of our founding principles. Indeed the whole encyclopedia exists on the premise of collective creativity, flexibility, thinking outside the box, etc. Considered deviations from so-called "best practice" are what lend life, really, to any intellectual pursuit. That's not to say I think it's absolutely essential we keep the lipogram, but I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that the people advocating for the lipogram are going against the spirit of the project. (It's not a charge I make against those arguing to remove the lipogram.) --JayHenry (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat that I, at least, have no interest at all in "keep[ing] the current version of the lipogram." I think the challenge is to improve this article. Myself, I've been less active on the talk page here not only because of what I feel is a poor attitude from some contributors here (and incidentally, I don't include you in that number, Phoenixrod); but also because it simply isn't helping the greater goal. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I thought we had reached more of a consensus, with many of the reasons for not keeping a lipogram being overcome. We now have no mangled names or silly links, an info box stating the correct name of the author and the missing letter, and hidden comments to advise new coming editors of the consensus position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of the anti-lipogrammers could care less about the article per se. Once they get it non-lipo, they will no longer be interested in the subject itself. This is not ABF...it's human nature. TCO (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Alienation

If the lipogram and its debate are going to turn off good editors, Padillah or anyone else, then it has to go. Let's stop this now.

I created a Gadsby subpage in my userspace, it shouldn't necessarily be there though, please move it, add lipograms to it and establish links to the main article. Just allow this page to evolve like other articles, without artistic constraints.

So yeah, I'm reversing my stance on the lipogram and I won't be present here for some time for two reasons: solidarity with those exhausted with this and because I still haven't finished reading the book so I have no potential contributions. Happier editing in the future, Synchronism (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, to make the obvious rebuttal: I would be turned off if we abandon the lipogram for such reasoning. So on whose side of the debate do we stop? --JayHenry (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this happens all the time on wikipedia. If we took the clear guidance about what wikipedia is and work with that the potential for work put in then removed would be less - however it appears to be an occupational hazard here. one has to get used to it. To reassert personal of fandom like editing is not what wikipedia is about. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess there will always be those who will not accept the consensus, and they have the right to come or go as they please but it does seem to me that we have reached one here and we should now get on with improving the article. I understand that some will not like the consensus decision and personally I assume no bad faith on their part. It is purely a matter of opinion.

Can I suggest that editors have a look at the articles on novels that are listed in WP:FA and maybe take a lead from some of them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean the Featured Articles that are written in a professional standard of English and do not follow a lipogrammatical or otherwise unusual writing style? Yes, by all means, let's take their lead! Personally, I see no consensus. So far you have been the only user to say there is one. María (habla conmigo) 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A major purpose of Wright's book was to show that good quality prose could be written without using the letter 'e'. Do you think he failed in that purpose? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again point missed. The question is not the standards and restrictions (successful or otherwise) of Wrights book. Here the question is one of writing freely and unconfined by any other limits other than quality English, quality research, conformance to general wikipedia policies etc. when writing "about" Wrights book. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how a lipogram limits any of the above significantly. The only restriction is the choice of words, but information content and research are not in any way limited, and something is added, the spirit of perversity in attempting to write a complete work in good English without using the letter 'e'. This cannot be conveyed better than by example.

Regarding Wikipedia policies, one thing made clear from the start is that WP is not about 'painting by numbers'. There is no set formula for all to follow. Individuality, innovation, and diversity are all welcomed, provided that they do not spoil the article - which the proposed limited use of a lipogram does not do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of consensus

Regarding the notes being put throughout the article - "There is a consensus that this section". I do not believe such a consensus exists. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk)

Any apparent consensus has been created by wearing down editors who are arguing for the normal use of English - surprise surprise! the standard language of this wikipedia version. Any editor should be free to contribute here normal wikipedia policies and guidelines allowing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The word "consensus" has been thrown around a lot, but I see none. What I see is "this is the way it is, so live with it". I for one would happily contribute to the article were I allowed to do so without constraints. I'm not going to write in a lower standard of English simply to preserve an archaic status quo. María (habla conmigo) 13:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, guys. That's hardly fair to the editors working on this page who have said, 'okay, point out the specific problems and we'll see if we can address them.' Then, the editors supporting the lipogram have compromised in a lot of different places. Rather than saying "this is the way it is, so live with it" they've accepted a lot of measures they weren't happy with. When you first arrive on this page, previously taboo phrases like "Ernest Vincent Wright" "novel" and "the letter e" are prominent on the page in the infobox. It's really unfair to say they're not compromising. It doesn't look to me like anyone is asking to take those phrases back out. Both sides are being worn down and are frustrated. As for "fandom", I don't see how it's helpful to lob the accusation. I'm not some lipogram fan, but I just see encyclopedic value in it. Actually employing the lipogram illustrates it in a way that "the novel omits the letter 'e'" does not. Nobody that I see is arguing to employ unusual methods everywhere that they could possibly be employed. But a lot of work has already gone into making this article actually pretty good. --JayHenry (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I have been here, pretty well all the changes have been to remove and restrict the lipogrammatical content of the article. If anything it is the pro-lopigramists that have been worn down, now it is time for the antis to give some. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to just jump in like this but I was researching this and caught the invitation to read the talk page. I have a question - From what I can determine this entire page, comments, references and all, used to be a lipogram, right? Then what are the anti-lipogram users supposed to be "giving"? I understand that it looks like all the effort has been one sided but, from all I can tell, it started out completely one-sided so where would the other side go? For example, how much more can you remove a letter than "completely"? 12.193.46.150 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the pros have conceded something. All I am suggesting is that the antis stop in the middle somewhere rather than pushing for complete removal of the lipogrammatical content or just a sample lipogram. I, and several others, believe that a reasonable compromise is that the main text of the article remains a lipogram but nothing else does. All I am asking the antis to do is accept this as a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We had a consensus!

And then the little rule-monger, school patrol wannabe, low wit, morons got all Palestinian and just kept wanting the rest of Israel after they got a piece. TCO (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)