This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Is the spoiler warning really neccessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.97.177 ( talk) 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In this edit, I removed the entire trivia section. I did so because none of the items said much more than that this book was mentioned in such and such an example of US popular culture. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This edit, altering one unsourced trivial claim to another (less amusing and thus less credible) unsourced trivial claim, reminded me that all of this is, well, unsourced and trivial, even when aggrandized as "parodies" rather than the dread "references in popular culture".
Therefore, in the next edit, I removed the whole lot.
If sourced, credible, interesting information about non-trivial parodies can be added, go ahead and add it. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The infobox conflates the original book (when it claims it was published in 1977) and at least one specific US edition of the English translation (when it gives the ISBN). It names the book that this book was "followed by" but doesn't indicate what "follow" means in this context. And most amazingly it gives the book as a reference for the number of pages in the book.
I can't fix this myself as I don't know how it should be fixed. Also, I'd be inclined simply to remove the infobox, which I don't see has helpful even if made consistent. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Of a different kind. . . .
I'm lost. Where's the inconsistency? -- Hoary ( talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant incontinence -- anonymous jokester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.246.67 ( talk) 09:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
On the title image of the book is pictured an apple. This is misinformation since apples do not "poop". 85.210.79.231 ( talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering the exact same thing. This is a hot issue and needs to be dealt with immedietly.-- Gooooooood namme ( talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Aw, horse apples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.143.119 ( talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have just removed a "popular culture" trivia section.
Here's what I removed:
Comments:
-- Hoary ( talk) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
How was the book received? How popular is it? What do critics say? SlowJog ( talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Is the spoiler warning really neccessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.97.177 ( talk) 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In this edit, I removed the entire trivia section. I did so because none of the items said much more than that this book was mentioned in such and such an example of US popular culture. -- Hoary ( talk) 12:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This edit, altering one unsourced trivial claim to another (less amusing and thus less credible) unsourced trivial claim, reminded me that all of this is, well, unsourced and trivial, even when aggrandized as "parodies" rather than the dread "references in popular culture".
Therefore, in the next edit, I removed the whole lot.
If sourced, credible, interesting information about non-trivial parodies can be added, go ahead and add it. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The infobox conflates the original book (when it claims it was published in 1977) and at least one specific US edition of the English translation (when it gives the ISBN). It names the book that this book was "followed by" but doesn't indicate what "follow" means in this context. And most amazingly it gives the book as a reference for the number of pages in the book.
I can't fix this myself as I don't know how it should be fixed. Also, I'd be inclined simply to remove the infobox, which I don't see has helpful even if made consistent. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Of a different kind. . . .
I'm lost. Where's the inconsistency? -- Hoary ( talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant incontinence -- anonymous jokester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.246.67 ( talk) 09:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
On the title image of the book is pictured an apple. This is misinformation since apples do not "poop". 85.210.79.231 ( talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering the exact same thing. This is a hot issue and needs to be dealt with immedietly.-- Gooooooood namme ( talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Aw, horse apples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.143.119 ( talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have just removed a "popular culture" trivia section.
Here's what I removed:
Comments:
-- Hoary ( talk) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
How was the book received? How popular is it? What do critics say? SlowJog ( talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)