Talk:Gadsby (novel)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

You missed black people and women but I think you managed to offend most everyone else with that comment. Dude, as someone who has already exercised the option, you need to just walk away and play at a park or something. Full disclosure: I have brought this to an admins attention. It's inexcusable to treat others to this vitriol. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Padillah here. TCO, please, the editors that disagree with us about the lipogram are not bad people or party poopers, and it's not helping anything to go on insulting them. We didn't have a consensus, but we have been getting closer to one. If everything slides backwards into insults and such, we'll get further away from that goal. Above, I said it was unfair to suggest the editors supporting a lipogram hadn't compromised or were waging a war of attrition. But it's extremely unfair to go on insulting people. Then it is a war of attrition. --JayHenry (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave an opinion of someone who just stumbled across this page after a google search. I loved it! I had to read the whole article to make sure there weren't any e's in it. Of course that might be because I realized quite early on that it was a lipogram (the "most common glyph" link to the letter e page is perfect) but I think it is a great idea and a lot of fun. I actually shared it on Google Reader I liked it so much. I understand the anti-lipogrammers' point of view (I have read through pretty much the whole talk page now) but I think it's a wonderful idea and I would definitely vote to keep it how it is now. Allowing e's in the infobox and external links etc seems like a perfectly fair compromise to me. I probably won't get into this debate any more (I don't spend much time editing on wikipedia) but I did want to chime in with my 2 cents. Thanks to everyone who made this article work! (and yeah, TCO you need to tone it down) biggins (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with this - from someone passing by! However the Lipogrammed article is creative (and it is), wikipedia is not the place for these extra "English" style restrictions to editors. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Neat? Yes. Useful? Not at all. How hard is it to understand that when you place restrictions on editing, you restrict the ability of people to edit? Why is it a good thing to restrict the information in an article? How is it more informative to use fewer words than an unfettered vocabulary? And before you respond that you are not trying to restrict the information in the article take note of Wright's own foreword, where he discussed the many things he simply couldn't refer to due to their having a letter 'e'. Past-tense verbs, pronouns, abbreviations that don't have 'e' in them but do when spelled out... Yes, omitting the letter 'e' is limiting the information in the article. The idea may be able to be communicated but at a much higher cost to both the reader and the editors. 76.186.135.163 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lipogram makes it harder for editors to edit the article and indeed it may make it harder for some readers to understand it, but remember that the only notable fact about the novel is that it is a lipogram. Most novels (in particular Wright's other's) do not have WP entries. The bare facts about Gadsby, in plain easy-to-understand-and-edit English, are given in the article lipogram; they make dull reading. WP gives us the opportunity to go beyond the standard encyclopedia. You can see from other comments how this article adds interest and excitement to an otherwise unmemorable subject. Should Wikipedia do this? In my opinion yes. For example it helps the reader form an opinion on the question, 'Is Wright's book better for being a lipogram than it would have been otherwise?'.

To sum up, the basic facts are there for all to see - Wright wrote a novel without using the letter 'e'. The rest is just a bit of fun which does no harm and much good. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup required.

Blue-Haired Lawyer has put a 'cleanup required' tag on this page. I am not sure if this is a heavy handed way of saying that he does not like the lipogram or if he is referring to something else?

This is an encyclopedia article not a work of literature. Article on James Joyce don't employ stream of consciousness etc... It is just so completely absurd that I shouldn't have to point it out. The clean-up tag is absolutely required. The article desperately needs to be rewritten using encyclopedic style. Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You have not engaged in any of the detailed ongoing debates on the article within this talk page. Nor are you proposing a different article. I am reverting the textbox as heavy handed turd dropping. TCO (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So much for being civil. If you can't understand how this isn't encyclopedic, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, perhaps you could give some examples of where you feel the text is encyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's written without the letter 'e'. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an objection based on an abstract principle rather than the actual English text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

COUNTERNOTE: We're writing an encyclopedia, first and foremost, and the clearest way to articulate a message should _always_ be used.

Agreed - but what is the message in this case? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To just consider one case, the message that this is a novel written without use of the letter 'E'. Because of the cute decision to write this encyclopedia article in the same style, the article must constantly skirt around the point:

"it painstakingly omits a most common glyph"

"it is a long lipogram, a composition avoiding a particular glyph throughout"

"Gadsby, by contrast, skips from "d" to "f" in its subvocabulary of around 4,000 valid words, thus omitting a symbol ubiquitous to Anglic-family idioms"

The first two examples have easter egg links, which quite simply are no good (intentionally ironic link), and the third is just awkward. It's all very clever, but a simple statement along the lines of "it is written without the letter e" is a clear improvement in phrasing. The only reason it's not written like that is because of the 'consensus' that we're writing the article as a lipogram, which means the lipogram is getting in the way of writing a clear and lucid encyclopedia article. I love wordplay and clever things, and I think the current article is neat, but it can be improved from its present state, and no improvement should be reverted just because it contains the letter 'e'. — maestrosync ^talk — 05:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the info box states clearly that the letter 'e' is missing, so there can be no confusion as to what letter is actually missing. I agree that the first example you give has a piped link. I would say that an occasional exception is justified in this instance. I see nothing wrong with the second example - 'glyph' is a proper word. The third example probably could be improved, 'Anglic-family idioms' is awful, but still without using the letter 'e'. Why not give it a go?

To reply to your more general point and at the risk of boring others I will repeat what I have said above on this page. By far the most notable thing about Gadsby is the fact that it does not contain the letter 'e'; neither of Wright's other two books have WP articles. That fact, which can be clearly stated in one sentence (and is clearly stated in the info-box), along with basic data is really is all that can be justified in a WP article on it. What else might an interested reader wish to know? The characters, the plot? Maybe, but better to read the book. What interested me was why a person would attempt to write a complete work of good English without using the letter 'e'.

As a bit of background, I had never heard of the novel until I came here in response to the RFC. When I first came the whole article, including links, references, info-box, and even some of the talk page was written without the letter 'e'. I was instrumental in reaching some sort of compromise (I would fear to call it a consensus) as represented by the article in its current state. Yes, it bends a few rules, but it gains far more in my opinion. Have a look through this talk page and you will see many favorable comments about the article being a lipogram. Once we lose this feature it will descent into obscurity; to allow the letter 'e' into the main text of the article is, in my opinion, to destroy it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Man, that's dramatic. Ever heard of a slippery slope?

Maybe over dramatised but I think it is true nevertheless. The majority of actual contributors to this page have been those fascinated by the concept of a lipogrammatical article about a lipogrammatical novel. If they were to be driven away, the article would soon be reduced to a stub. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, while encyclopedaic, should allow a few 'quirky' pages.

Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to have 'an analysis of lipogram texts' elsewhere (though would probably be sufficiently OR to end up on Wikinfo or some other suitable site)

(And this talk page is very long) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article based on a request on the cleanup page. I made an edit to more clearly explain what this article was about because it seemed to be overly opaque. I've reverted it in deference to those on this page, but I have to agree with Maestrosync. Doing this article as a lipogram is clever and fun, but it's not encyclopedic. A reader shouldn't have to follow links to find out the basic information that this article is about a book that contains no Es. Yes, it's in the infobox, but the infobox is not part of the main text of the article. Meanwhile the language is overly convoluted because of the lipogram conventions. I respect what is trying to be done here, but I'm not sure its appropriate as it currently stands.

I'll also point out that there will inevitably be other good faith edits like my own who don't realize what's going on. Perhaps, if it is to remain this way, and I'm not adverse to it necessarily, the fact that it is a lipogram should be made clearer. Perhaps a message at the top should be included, stating something like: This article is an example of a lipogram in that it does not contain the letter E.

Likewises, specifically state that this article is an example of a lipogram in the lipogram article. Then this article becomes, if not encyclopedic, a concrete example of a lipogram within wikipedia and more justifiable. But clarifying that is a lipogram is vital in this regard.--Lendorien (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"...becomes, if not encyclopedic", Exactly my point. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that I am aware of that states that an article in an encyclopedia must contain every letter of the alphabet. The object of an encyclopedia article is to get information across. I believe a lipogram does this better in this particular case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But neither has anyone heard (except here) of a rule that says an encyclopaedia (or article within it) must not contain a particular letter of the alphabet. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is claiming use of the letter 'e' is not encyclopedic. The article has been written without it to capture the spirit of the article. My point is simply that not using any particular letter does not automatically make an article un-encyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but there is a rule that states that information should be presented in a clear and pricise way. The lack of the use of the letetr E not only forces the use of obscure language to get the point across, it makes it impossible to say in a clear and precise way why this book is notable... namely that it's an english language novel that doesn't use the letter E. Look, as it stands now, this article is NOT encyclopedic. As a random cleanup editor, if I came to any other page written this way, I would rewrite it or at least tag it for tone and cleanup. The language used in it is convoluted. The content is fun, it's well put together, but it's not encyclopedic. I've made a suggestion to help keep in this way because I do think it would be a shame to lose it, but if it is kept this way, then we do need to disclaim at the top of the page exactly what is going on. --Lendorien (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Informal consensus poll

Ok, I'm going clarify what has been discussed on this page. We've had a few suggestions on how to resolve this issue. As an informal poll (this pole is not consensus binding, but intended to promote a more organized discussion of options), please respond with the option you prefer and why that option should be chosen. --Lendorien (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC) & Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Option 1 - Article should be rewritten to use the letter 'e' as required in normal English. This option would likely remove its status as a lipogram.
2. Option 2 - (A) Article should be rewritten as in Option 1 but separate lipogram version should be maintained at Gadsby: Champion of Youth (lipogram) and prominantly linked (at the top of the page) to the non-lipogram main article. (B) Or alternately, maintain the lipogram version at the main page and prominently link (at the top of the page) it to a non-lipogram version at Gadsby: Champion of Youth (non-lipogram).
3. Option 3 - Article should be maintained as a lipogram with a clear disclaimer at the top of the page akin to the following. This article is an example of a lipogram in that it does not contain the letter E.
4. Option 4 - Article should remain lipogramatic following one of the following three options: (A) Body of the article should remain a lipogram, while References/Infobox/External links etc. be rendered normally. Or (B) The body of the article should remain a lipogram, and the rest should remain a lipogram unless doing so would introduce factual inaccuracies. Or (C) The article should be entirely lipogrammatic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Replies

• Option 2B - I weakly support this option. This seems like a happy medium. I am troubled that this article does not conform to wikipedia policy, as "being clever and neat" is not exactly part of wikipedia's goals and purpose. While I'm not thrilled by the idea of maintaining two seperate versions (logistic-wise, it could cause issues), it will provide a happy medium that will allow both versions to exist. --Lendorien (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• 2A and 2B seem to me like they would violate the Wikipedia policy on having two articles for the same thing: Wikipedia:Content_Forking. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I see your issue with having two versions of the article. It would create editing issues. I guess then I'd have to weakly support Option 3 mixed with 4B.--Lendorien (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you don't mind me saying so, the poll seems a little skewed. I think there should be options for "Body of the article should remain a lipogram, while References/Infobox/External links etc. be rendered normally", "body of the article should remain a lipogram, and the rest should remain a lipogram unless doing so would introduce factual inaccuracies" (i.e. "Citations" and "Bibliography" instead of "Footnotes" and "References") and thirdly "The article should be entirely lipogrammatic". Your first option is also clearly biased, suggesting that lipograms are necessarily unclear and unencyclopaedic. Skomorokh 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no requirement to use every letter of the alphabet in an encyclopedia article.

I maintain it is impossible to keep this article lipogramatic and conform to Wikipedia's policies. Forbidding the use of the letter forces writers to use awkward language. Not to mention that clearly saying "Gadsby: Champion of Youth is a book that was specifically written to preclude the use of the letter E." is impossible to say without using the letter e. I will edit my options to address some of your concerns, however. --Lendorien (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Option 1 - with revision - there is no overriding need to rewrite (except to avoid contorted wordings) - just remove the restrictions on normal editing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I vote for Option 3, but see below for comments that didnt fit well in this line-by-line section. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I think that each of the options has its downsides. If we go with Option 1, we'll likely kill the enthusiasm of most of the editors who've contributed a lot to this article, who edited in part because they liked the idea of a collaborative lipogram. Without them the article would be doomed to no more than a few edits per year from here on out. I originally came in on this discussion six months ago in favor of deleting the lipogram, but I have to admit that I have no interest in this article outside of this content dispute, and if Option 1 wins I'm not going to hang around and improve the article. I'll just move on and find other things to edit. So I'm not intending to cast any votes regarding the yes/no of lipogram issue itself; I just want to help mediate the discussion and guide it towards a potential compromise. However, I want to say that each of the non-liposuction solutions has problems as well:

Option 2A and 2B, perhaps the most neutral compromises, nevertheless violate a Wikipedia prohibition on content forking. Granted, there's probably no way for this article not to break some rule or other, but I think that forking the article into two is an especially inelegant solution which would introduce other problems as well.

Option 3 sounds good, but it has the drawback that it would spoil the fun of those users who come to the page expecting a normal article and don't realize what's up until halfway through or beyond. Option 4 is the opposite of that; it sounds good but it would frustrate unhappy users who don't realize they're reading a lipogram and assume that it is simply a poorly written Wikipedia article. Options 3 and 4 both have the potential to provoke vandalism, though I expect the number of vandals reaching this page will be very low, as it has been up until now.

For now, I'm going to vote 3. I think, though, that Option 3 is not incompatible with 4A and 4B; we could have a header at the top of the article defining it as a lipogram and then still use 'e' in the references and/or infobox.

Finally, for comparison, I want to provide the link to the last "good" non-lipogram version of the article, from July 25: [1].

I'm still watching this page, and will contribute if I have anything more to say. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So we have a clearly acknowledged "fandom" here - the editors who are "able" to contribute are those 'keen' on lipogrammes. What about those editor's who are not who are going to be able, willing and bring balance to the article. Yes I know those who can contribute lipogrammatically are capable of critical comment and editing - but you are excluding those who are less capable of this type of contribution or who are simply put off or reverted. Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Option 4A The lipogram is the only notable feature of the book and writing the article as one captures the spirit of the book and its author. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4 Hi all! Sorry, I was busy waiting around voting for Chuck Baldwin. Looks as if this discussion is finally moving forward happily. Thanks so much for that invitation back. I will scan this all and work on such rough points as you list prior, at my opportunity. I think my additional plans for improving this topic will fit in suitably now. JJB 17:55, 5-12-2008 (UTC)
• Option 4, B, A, and C in order of preference. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopaedia, and need not repeat its modernist follies.[2] Skomorokh 18:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1, with 4A a close second. While I don't believe that a lipogram can work, I would be willing to give it a shot in just the plot summary and nowhere else as long as all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines are followed - no egging, etc. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1, with 4A a distant second (as if you needed to ask). I'd also like to ask why this article wouldn't gain from being editable by anyone? Soap brings up a fine argument but an ultimately unsupportable postulate: that removing the lipogram would reduce the number of editors on the article. Why wouldn't people that have been driven away by the patently absurd views of some of the lipogramic editors return now that the article is free of the self-imposed restrictions? There is no way to tell how much of what type of editor will stay or go, so this argument is moot. Padillah (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1, because it is impossible to discuss the unique nature of this novel without being unnecessarily vague (e.g., by not specifying in the text exactly which letter is omitted) in the format of a lipogram omitting the letter 'e'. JulesH (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1. If the article could be written such that omitting the letter E wouldn't take away from its clarity, I wouldn't particularly mind if it remained a lipogram, but I'm not sure that's even possible, much less likely to happen. The current article seems unnecessarily confusing and convoluted (trying to figure out why that was is the main reason I came to this talk page.) Also, if the novel's only claim to notability is that it is a lipogram, couldn't this article just be merged into the lipogram article? Rnb (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option 4B I've just found the text on Wikisource - I didn't know it was out of copyright - and am willing to put it the necessary effort to make this article both lipogramatical and readable. This is a brilliantly-written article and I have pointed it out to friends as proof that Wikipedians do indeed have a sense of humour. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please have a go then. Recent edits have added just two e's to the text. Can you find a way to remove them and keep the editors who inserted them happy? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Audience/readership

One thing that might help us come to some consensus on the lipogram would be to consider who our intended and expected audience is. Might I suggest that we restrict this section to purely considering what our readership is. I have added a section below for discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My starting categories would be:

General Browsers - People who are randomly looking through WP for general interest.

Fact-checkers - People who are settling arguments or bets are checking surprising or dubious facts.

Literature students - Students of English literature at all levels, maybe studying a particular period, style, or genre.

Discussion relating to section above

Discussion here Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

My changes to this article.

I made a number of changes to this article in an attempt to make its rather obscure meaning clearer. These have been reverted, so I am bringing them here for discussion. Specifically:

• In the second paragraph, I changed "omits a most common glyph" to "omits the letter 'e'". "A most common glyph" is totally ambiguous as there are several possible readings. Interpreted strictly, the intended meaning (i.e. all occurrences of the letter 'e') is not actually one of them, as the letter 'e' may be written using any of several allographs which are all considered separate glyphs. Furthermore, even if we accept the shoddy use of 'glyph' where 'letter' is the intended meaning, the use of 'a' where 'the' is the correct word leaves the reader wondering whether it is 'e' that is meant, or perhaps 't', being the second most common letter in the English language, and certainly "a most common" letter.
• In the first paragraph of the section 'lipogrammatic quality', I changed 'skips from "d" to "f"' to 'omits "e"'. It is not entirely clear whether the range indicated by by 'from "d" to "f"' is inclusive (i.e., consists of the letters 'd', 'e' and 'f') or exclusive (i.e., consists solely of the letter 'e'), and therefore the phrasing is ambiguous. I actually interpreted this incorrectly the first time I read it, and I'm left wondering how many others have read this article and come away with that impression.
• If I had not noticed that I had been reverted, I would further have changed "glyph" to "letter" in the same paragraph. The words are not synonyms, and it is incorrect to state that there was only a single glyph avoided by Wright throughought the book (the glyphs he avoided would have consisted at the least of 'e' and 'E', and may also have included 'é', 'è', etc., all of which are entirely distinct glyphs).

I would welcome comments on these proposed changes, but unless there is a good reason not to make them I do intend to reinsert them. I would consider a lipogrammatic way of fixing these issues a good reason, but I cannot see one, hence I think for the sake of clarity of the article they should be made. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the very long history of this subject on this page. You will notice above a poll on whether the page should be a lipogram or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC) You obviously have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I would add. If the consensus/majority view is changing to the article not being a lipogram the I believe that anyone who adds a couple of e's should take the trouble to rewrite the whole article in normal English. There is absolutely no point in the article being a near lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read the long history on this page, and the archive. I note that there is not, nor does there ever appear to have been to my eyes, a consensus that the article should be in this form. (Because the form is, essentially, in violation of standard Wikipedia guidelines regarding style issues, consensus is needed to keep it, rather than change it, as far as I see it). It has prompted serious disagreement from the very beginning, and despite over 2 years having passed, the issues that the original editors had with it have not yet been fixed.

I agree there has never been unanimity but in the various polls there has been a consistent majority for the lipogram. When I came here in response to the RFC, the article was in a much worse state than it is now, with the while article, including references and links omitting 'e. Many of those who wanted a complete lipogram compromised so that we now have just the body of the article as a lipogram. Most of the really serious problems have now been solved and I would suggest that with a few more good ideas it will be possible to overcome the remaining problems bust still keep the character and spirit of the article. Let us work to improve, not regulate.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, however, that it is necessary to rewrite the entire article to fix this. Certainly I consider the plot summary and character list as distinct from the rest of the article, and if those sections were to remain as a lipogram I'd be quite happy with the result. JulesH (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So you want an "E quarantine zone" at the top of the article where the basic nature of the book can be clearly explained without artificial constraint, while the rest of the article can be a lipogram? AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have one in the form of the infobox, but I would have no objection if this were expanded. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the introduction, the section describing the fact that the book is a lipogram and the section on critical reception should not be lipograms. It seems that these are just too hard to write reasonably in that format, the first two because of the need to tell readers the name of the author of the book and to describe that the book contains no 'e's, the latter because it is an important fact that the work has been compared to two books which both have 'e's in their titles. JulesH (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The info box gives the information about the author's name and the letter 'e'. Perhaps it should be more prominent. Regarding the other two books I would rather omit reference to them or avoid quoting their names directly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write a paragraph as a lipogram. 'This is a lipogram'. It is not very interesing. The whole point about Gadsby, and its only notable feature, is that the entire work is written as a lipogram, neither of Wright's other two books have an article in WP. If we use the odd letter 'e' to improve clarity, the whole concept of a complete work as a lipogram is destroyed. You may consider it worth doing but, before doing it, I would ask you to consider the questions that I have asked above, who will be reading this article and what do we want them to get out of it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any clear target reader for the article. Other than, perhaps, people who have heard about the book and want to find out more about it. What we want them to get out of it is a clear understanding of the most important things to know about the book. JulesH (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What would they want to know about it, the plot, the characters? Maybe, but most likely they would be drawn to it by the fact it was written as a lipogram. What they would be interested in are questions like, how much does not using the letter 'e restrict the style and readability? Is the book better or worse for being a lipogram? What makes someone want to write a work of English as a lipogram? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Martin, but writing this article as a lipogram still won't convey those ideas as clearly as if we found supporting articles and conveyed the ideas. Where did you get the idea that we are writing this article for any of the altruistic reasons you are using to defend it? Is the article on Ayn Rand written in such a way as to inspire the reader to embrace objective realism? Is the article on Van Gogh written to inspire readers to go mad and cut their ears off? No. In point of fact if you are suggesting we write this article with the goals you propose that would be POV pushing and would still be against the tenets of this encyclopedia. Therefore, there remains no valid reason to ignore the rules in this instance. Padillah (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will just have to disagree over your first statement. I really doubt that anyone will find any reliable sources that convey Wright's reasons for writing as he did; nobody seems to have done so so far. Perhaps the best way for that those who are against the lipogram to make their point would be for them to find some realiable sources that can accurately convey the spirit of Wright's undertaking. Regarding altruism, I am not sure why else people contribute to WP. It is done by most of us to help other people gain access to all human knowledge.

One further point that I would like to remind all current editors of is that when an RFC was raised on this page (in response to which I came here) the whole article (links, references, the lot) was entirely written as a lipogram, with some editors pushing for the talk page to be one also. Most of what I have done here was to reduce the lipogrammatical content of the page in the attempt to reach a consensus. Much ground was given by the the lipogram supporters but, rather than accept a compromise, those against a lipogram have continued to push for its abolition. There are now very few real problems with the main text of the article and with a bit of effort and creativity I am sure that they can be overcome. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So you think simply stating a point of view plainly won't communicate as much information as obfuscating it within paragraphs that would make Roget blush? Huh. As far as finding a reliable source to describe why Wright wrote the book, I would think Wright would be a good start: "...this story was written, not through any attempt to attain literary merit, but due to a somewhat balky nature, caused by hearing it so constantly claimed that “it can’t be done; for you cannot say anything at all without using E, and make smooth continuity, with perfectly grammatical construction—” so ‘twas said." Not to put too fine a point on it, a quote I would love to add to the article, but can't use for lipogramatically obvious reasons. Lastly, we all appreciate the steps that have been taken thus far. I hope no one here is trying to claim otherwise. However, that doesn't make the current version any more acceptable than it was before. Just because the murder rate has gone down doesn't mean we can accept the few murders that remain, and that's what I see happening to this article, it's being murdered with overzealous, self-flagellating posing. Padillah (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this issue for as long as you want but I think the chances of either one of us completely persuading the other is slim. You are entitled to your view but there are other editors who love the lipogram. It seems unlikely that we will ever achieve a true consensus, the best we will get is a compromise, which is where we are now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as you adamantly refuse to answer direct questions, I suppose you are right. Padillah (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What direct questions? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

I've asked twice now if you think stating a fact clearly and succinctly is less effective than creating some "life-lesson" out of the experience? I wasn't trying to be funny or rhetorical, I'm asking because my sister-in-law is a teacher and she believes that knowledge should be worked for. She believes that if you simply tell someone the answer they won't learn they will memorize. Which is a fine point of view for a teacher, and I wanted to see if you espoused this philosophy as well to help give me some bearing on your outlook on the article.

Also, maybe not as direct, I've tried to elicit a response to the question by asking where you got the idea we were editing the article for the ideas you espoused. You neutered that question by turning it into a generic one about the general editing of Wikipedia, that's not what I asked.

Then there's the hanging implied question of what to do with a very valuable quote from the author that does address some of the questions you put forth but can't possibly be used in it's current form under the restrictions currently in place for this article. It's value as a direct quote from the author regarding his motives for creating such a work should be readily apparent, and before anyone asks "Yes, the information can be conveyed in a lipogram" but what of the value imparted by being a direct quote? How do we replace that? I'm not out to try and change your mind. I'm trying to see if I can get you to accept that, despite what you see the article as, it's much better suited to being a simple encyclopedic entry. Padillah (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to stating facts vs working for knowledge, I am not sure that I have ever thought about it that way. I am certainly not against stating facts, when there are any, clearly and succinctly, but in this case there is only one real fact, that Wright did not use the letter 'e'. Although this is not stated explicitly in the main text of the article it is made written in plain English in the infobox (I have no objection to making this more prominent) and it is also revealed when the mouse is hovered over 'most common glyph'. I cannot believe that any readers will fail to discover this feature of the book from the article and I do not consider the minuscule extra effort to reveal this fact to be a problem.

I am not sure that I understand your second question, I have certainly not been trying to evade it. For any written work it is a good idea to consider who the intended audience is and what you expect them to get out of it. The ideas that I espoused in this respect were my own thoughts on the subject; I did try to start a discussion in the subject but without success.

The quote from the author could be added as a lipogram with a footnote showing the verbatim text.

I cannot see any benefit to anyone in this article being a simple entry. Perhaps you could tell me who you think would gain from this. If it were written this way it would probably be a couple of short, simple, and boring paragraphs, if it existed at all.

Looking through the talk pages you will see several readers who loved the lipogram. In some ways it goes beyond what can be expressed in plain words. I came here in response to a rather bizarre RFC butI am now trying to get hold of a copy of the book. Had the article been written in plain English, I would have moved on long ago. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, the benefit to this being a simple entry is that when someone wants information about the book they can be presented with information about the book. Not an article equivalent of a crossword puzzle (27-Down "Most common glyph" Hmm...). This follows from the answer to my second question, why do you think it should be an exciting and playful romp that uplifts the family... OK, now I'm getting carried away :) . The question is still valid, I'm getting the impression you are looking to make this article some sort of advertisement for the book, is that it? The goal of Wikipedia isn't to make articles interesting, it's to make them, period. I appreciate the desire to inspire people to read and learn, I just don't think Wikipedia is the right format for this. And, ultimately, it's POV pushing. Padillah (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The information you refer to is presented clearly in the infobox. As I have said before, I have no objection to making it more prominent, unmissable even. Wikipedia exists for the benefit of its readers yet you seem curiously unconcerned as to who they might be and what they might hope to get from the project. You comment about POV pushing is is something of a misuse of the term. POV pushing refers to the content of an article. Every editor is entitled to their opinion as to how the information is to be presented; you have yours and I have mine.

Finally, I must repeat that my position is to support a compromise between those like yourself and those who want the article to be a complete lipogram. I think you need to give a little, others have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, regarding compromise: the article had been stable for months and was not a lipogram until JJB more or less unilaterally changed it in July. The discussion resulting from his changes really picked up in August when Soap posted on the talk page and I backed him up. It's pure revisionism to say that "we" need to give more. As I see it, the article was fine if undeveloped before JJB's lipogrammatic changes, and we've been bending over backwards for months to keep JJB's changes as the "standard" when that version never had a talk page consensus. I think "we" have already given a lot here—too much, even. We should keep those changes, but we don't have to keep the style.

The article as it now stands still goes even farther with the lipogram than Wright himself did. The introduction to Wright's novel is in plain English; ours should be too. Additionally, the body should be in plain English, but I'm willing to compromise as at the article on A Void, which contains one lipogrammatical section.

I disagree that the Gadsby article should illustrate a lipogram; readers can simply click through to Wright's text, which illustrates much more gracefully than we can how the lipogram works in action. I'm sorry if some readers would move on if we write in non-obfuscatory English, but it's not as if we earn money from how often this article is viewed. We should think in terms of the broad encyclopedia's standards, not just on this one article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I came in response to the RFC and at that time I thought that I was supporting some kind of consensus, or at least compromise. I do rather like the lipogam myself but if the majority of editors no longer want it it is not my place to interfere. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

waits for all hell to break loose

You can wait if you like. My point only needs making once. The effort is getting too much - wikipedia's ideals die here :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how this article is contrary to the basic idea of all human knowledge being available to everyone. No all knowledge can be stated as simple facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Specifically in the area of being freely editable with the boundaries of the general wikipedia policies. These (the extra rules) limit that! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of critical quotations

I'd make these exempt from the lipogrammical rules. They add signifanctly to the article and lie outside the text if we put them in blockquote tags. Their use would allow us to build the article up considerably. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh! so suddenly the "Rules" don't apply here now! Sorry, of course they shouldn't or anywhere in the article for just this kind of reason and others. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We now have the worst of both worlds.

Two e's have been added to the page, on what seems to be a matter of principle. This ruins the lipogram but does nothing to make the style of English used throughout the whole article more readable. These who objected to the lipogram complained that the style of English that this caused made the article difficult to read and understand yet, having ruined the hard work of others, they have done nothing to make the article readable and easy to understand.

I suggest the the lipogrammatical status of this article should be maintained until someone is willing to put in the effort required to rewrite the whole article in plain English, if that is indeed the consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, to say hard work is in ruins because of two+ ees. It's still largely a lipogram, because no one has yet seen fit better phrasing. What you're proposing is the same old rejection of out-of-line edits but for highly subjective and reactionary reasons. Whole-article single-editor revisions aren't always the best, and even then nobody owns this article. A total revision isn't necessary. Jbmurray's revisions came about over time and were quite transparent, and your alternate desire for total plain engish might then jeoporadize his hard work.

I prefer a slow and perhaps incomplete transition where there is substantial reason other than simply to change the syntax and vocabulary, such as an egg hunt or using the proper proper nouns of subjects, Synchronism (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We shall see. The lipogram is now spoiled. Will the article slowly take on a new life? I very much doubt it.

Had Wright written a book with only a limited number of e's in it, it probably have gone unnoticed. The whole point of a lipogram is that it completely omits a particular letter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wright did write a book with only a limited number e's in it, though. The introduction was written in normal English. JulesH (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The introduction is not part of the literary work itself, it is a separate entity. We have a non-lipogrammatical infobox. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fail

Sheesh, this whole page looks like it's straight from Uncyclopedia. And to whoever put the horrible phrase "fifth symbol of the Anglo-Saxon syllabary" in there: EPIC FAIL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.36.190 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER?

This whole idea of "lipogramming" an article is just rediculous. It just makes things more confusin, and more difficult. Why would we want to make an encyclopediac entry confusing? Do you honestly think a reader is going to care whether or not YOU ommited "e" in your article? Frankly, it just bothered me. It's confusting, it's annoying, and nobody cares about doing it except for most of you guys! This is supposed to be a simple, concise, and informative article on the book. Not some production where you try to omit the letter "e" from the entry. It's a terrible idea! It takes away from the information. It both distracts and confuses the reader. They will notice that there are much simpler ways to say what you're trying to say, and than they will notice that it's missing the letter "e". At this point, the reader will begin to think either "Why the hell would you want to do this? It's so confusing and overcomplicated", or "Oh, that's pretty neat!". In either case however, the reader is now distracted, and eventually the reader will ultimatley say the former. To sum it all up concisely, my point is that lipogramming this article is hard, unnecessary, over complicates the article, damages it's informative capabilities, is frusturating to understand what the hell you're trying to say half the time, and is flat out distracting. This whole thing is rediculous. IT IS NOT AN ENGLISH MASTERPIECE. This is an encyclopedia! People want lots of information in a concise manner that's easy to understand. Doing this, is not worth anything. It's useless and annoying. If you want to do it so bad, write your own stupid encyclopedia that omits the letter "e" in every single article. You'll see what I'm talking about when the few people who but it give you terrible reviews on how it makes little sense to them. Theirs15elements (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)theirs15elements

Um, not to put too fine a point on it but this is really misplaced. my last three edits voer the past week have been non-lipogramic and no one has cared. Let's start editing the article. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not that no one has cared just that there seems to be a majority now for no lipogram. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry, didn't mean to misrepresent. Padillah (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought thr article was really neat as a lipogram. Now that the dead-enders have won, I will be moving on. TCO (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)