Talk:Lewis Carroll

Quotes about Carroll on separate page
I am very aware that MUCH interesting material can be collected about Lewis Carroll, but I truly object to creating a seperate page for it without any clear NEED for doing so. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My justification is that Lewis Carroll is already a long article, which I could easily double in length, and this too is potentially a long article.--Collingwood (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you (much as I do), have great admiration for Dodgson's imaginative genius, but I believe that setting up such articles sets a very bad precedent which would permit such pages to proliferate for extremely trivial reasons by people seeking to divide out much controversy from articles on people, and letting ONLY the person's OWN views of themselves and the world be presented on their own pages. Adolf Hitler comes to mind, where his page would become little more than a Nazi propaganda peice if one were to divide out all the quotes about him from his page. Similar effects would abound with OTHER dictators of all sorts. And this is but ONE of the reasons I believe such articles are a VERY BAD idea. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks


 * Note: The general proposition is being discussed at Village pump. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I remerged this section to the page. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Remerge of Letters
I strongly oppose this. The Lewis Carroll article is not turning into a stub; on the contrary, it is growing. It is now 16k in size, larger than it was before the "Letters" quotes were removed, and will get significantly bigger if the "About" quotes are added in. Also, there are large numbers of quotes that could be added. For example, there is currently only one quote from "Sylvie and Bruno Concluded".--Collingwood (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Letters section or page issue I have no strong feelings either way, but I don't feel it is actually necessary to have a page for it at this point, as I generally prefer to keep such things together. I have no inclination to remerge it if there are strong feelings that it should be developed as a separate page. The breaking off of the "Quotes about" Carroll section into a page is what I had strongest objections to, as it would set what I considered a horrendously problematic precedent on page divisions. As most people who have commented seem inclined to agree, or at least accept that remerge, I believe I will restore that section now.  ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left the Letters page separate, despite seeing no strong need for such a page at this point, but have now remerged the "Quotes about" Carroll section. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the Letters page should be remerged into this page - if size is a concern, I have split out another of Carroll's works (The Hunting of the Snark) - I would much rather see quotes from individual works split into their own page rather than these letters. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this assessment that it is better to separate a cohesive literary work than what amounts to a broad range of diverse statements on many ideas and subjects, as a page of "Letters" would have. I believe that having a presentation of wide ranges of comments on diverse subjects is one of the best things which we could provide on any an author's primary page. ~ ♞☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems inconsistent to me. Very many pages here, including a high proportion of the author pages, cover "a broad range of diverse statements on many ideas and subjects".  Merging the letters page back in would guarantee that the Lewis Carroll page would cover a broader range than either page on its own would.--Collingwood (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (It was I who tagged Letters of Lewis Carroll to be merged here.) I don't see the inconsistency. UDScott and Kalki are suggesting that quotes from what publishers and literary critics call occasional pieces ought to be on the primary author page, and that separate articles are more appropriate for quotes from larger integral works that stand on their own as distinct entities. Are you saying that you oppose merging the letters page back in because that "would guarantee that the Lewis Carroll page would cover a broader range than either page on its own would"? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I just thought I'd detected an inconsistency in the criticism. I am puzzled by all this.  Ningauble's edit summary when placing the "merge" tag was "merge back into what is turning into a stub".  This was odd when the article was expanding despite my transfer.  Now UDScott removed a far larger section than I did (6209 characters compared to 2589), reducing it to the size it was over four years ago, but that is not turning it into a stub.  It would be convenient for me, when working heavily on a particular topic, to have it as a separate article.  However, by all means do as you wish.  I am content to add the quotes.--Collingwood (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Please forgive the hyperbole. It was not really turning into a stub. On the other hand, 15 or 20 kilobytes is not really a large page for a prominent literary figure. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To make an entirely different point: Lewis Carroll was noted for his letter writing. He wrote tens of thousands of letters. There are several published books consisting mainly of his letters, e.g. "A Selection from the Letters of Lewis Carroll to His Child-Friends", "Lewis Carroll and the House of Macmillan", "Lewis Carroll & His Illustrators" and of course "The Letters of Lewis Carroll" (2 vols). Indeed, his official biography was titled "The Life and Letters of Lewis Carroll". Thus Letters of Lewis Carroll is a highly notable topic, in a way that is true of very few other people, and as such it deserves its own article.--Collingwood (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least, some of the more notable quotes from his letters should be included in the main page. --Tryst (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not how this site works. In the case of Lewis Carroll, for example, apart from the letters there are separate articles for three of his major works.  There are no quotes from these works on the main page.--Collingwood (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But the page on William Shakespeare has some famous quotes from his plays. --Tryst (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it has only one quote, and with an inadequate reference (just the play, not the act and scene).--Collingwood (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mais alors, dit Alice

 * Mais alors, dit Alice, si le monde n'a absolument aucun sens empêche d'en inventer un?

Is this actually from Lewis Carroll? I couldn't track the source.Z, 19 Jan 2013
 * Of course, Alice was written in English, not French. As far as I can understand the French, I'm pretty sure it's not a translation of anything in the Alice books.--Collingwood (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)