Talk:Richard Aldington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is there some reason we need a huge block of text, that is nothing but the table of contents of one of the books he was simply the editor of? Its not encyclopedic and of no relevance to the biography of this gentleman. I could see it being a seperate article, if there was more narrative detail about the book its self. Stbalbach 19:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added a large number of similar lists (most of the contents of Category:Poetry anthologies) over the last year or more. This is the first occasion that anyone has suggested that this is not encyclopedic material. If I have to defend it, I would say two things:
- of course his taste in literature tells you something about Aldington, the writer, and does so in a different way from trying to theorise about what he may have taken, for example, from the 1890s generation;
- such lists serve an important basic purpose in developing other articles, as others decide to fill in red links, and in navigation of the site.
I certainly think that a unilateral cut is not the way to raise the issue.
Charles Matthews 20:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Look, Charles, Im sorry if you were personally offended, nothing personal ok? I didnt go looking for "edits by Charles" to delete, I make edits based on what I see and explain in the comments why and if someone has a problem with it, they can revert it and/or discuss, thats how wikipedia works.
Then I propose creating a separate article, for the book, as is the convention in Wikipedia, books have their own articles. It looks bad esthetically in the article and makes no sense. Of course now that you explain the reasoning, I can understand the thinking behind it, but its not at all clear to the reader what this is, and why. In any case what this is and why its there needs a lot more explanation, and better layout. Stbalbach 21:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we can see whether anyone else agrees with you. Normally people using a reference book are credited with some intelligence. Charles Matthews 22:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok no problem Ill give it a day or two to see what other comments arise. I consider myself pretty intelligent and it didnt make sense to me what this cryptic mass of text was intended for (apparently the reasons are hidden and had to be teased out in the dicussion page). Stbalbach 22:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- This article needs a lot of expansion. If and when that happens, I'd support moving the anthology material to its own article. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
