Talk:The Monsters and the Critics, and Other Essays

WikiProject class rating

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 13:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the article on the original lecture be merged with this article on the published form of the lecture with other essays. Neither is terribly long, and there seems to be more than a little overlap. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That would not be a good idea. The first essay (and the original lecture), Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, made a lasting impression, and deserves a longer article given its impact. It is unquestionably notable in its own right. Several of the other collected essays - On Fairy-Stories, A Secret Vice and English and Welsh already have their own articles (and one on the essay "On Translating Beowulf" is long overdue), so a merge to one of the articles makes no sense: the article on the collected essays instead forms an index and top-level overview of the articles on the essays. I've written a plot summary for the original lecture, which gives the article more weight, and I hope shows why it made such an impression. I hope to add a bit more on the reception, which needs to be a lot more substantial than it now is. I read the other article on the collection of essays, and think it will probably do better as a stand-alone article - I can't see how it would fit in here at all tidily, as it would seem to be a sort of stray appendix rather than anything essentially to do with the magnificent power of the original lecture. I therefore Oppose the merger. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, for the same reasons advanced by Chiswick. BPK (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, sure. I've been swayed. Since I proposed it, I'll remove the markers.--Akhenaten0 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ Rob^Talk 01:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The ISBN it added was the French translation, hardly ideal, so I've blocked it with a blank as instructed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)