Talk:Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, With a Few Desert and Mountain Beasts
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fearsome Creatures of the Lumberwoods, With a Few Desert and Mountain Beasts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments edit
I came across the reference to this book, like most people, in Borges. I investigated to see if it was real. When I read this page, I thought it was a hoax--"Barns" and "Nobel"? "Fate" would prove otherwise? But alas, it's just a poorly-written entry, as the external link leads one to an actual text. Oh, well, I'm not going to change anything. 141.158.42.121 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I got hold of a first edition of this book easily through interlibrary loan. I have a hard time believing an "exhaustive search" was necessary to "rediscover" the book. On the other hand, Apalon has done a great service by publishing Fearsome Creatures on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgigantor (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC) & 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that claiming that an "exhaustive search" was necessary to find an original seems far fetched. There are many copies listed in OCLC. Furthermore, I don't think that the 1984 edition is "condensed"; I believe it is a complete facsimile reprint. I don't have the 1984 Bishop edition handy but I believe it says that it was reproduced from the copy held by the Library of Congress (or Smithsonian Institution?). There was no copyright in force on the original so the work was in the public domain and could be copied freely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.56.40 (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC) & 19:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating edit
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Expansion edit
This article is not as well developed as it should be and is missing several important sections that should be added, for example, sections detailing the book's development background (if possible), reception and legacy.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)