This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Nome Kingdom page were merged into Nome King on 14 July 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Nome Kingdom was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 October 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Nome King. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Is it possible that Baum's Nome King was based in part on Friedrich de la Motte-Fouque's Alberich? I personally see quite a bit of similarity between these two villains, including a propensity to enslave surface-dwellers and an all-consuming desire to harm the entire human race. What do you think? 67.170.215.166 ( talk) 02:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This new section entitled "Analysis" seems very much too long and wordy, contains way too much pointless plot summary of the books in which the Nome King appears, and may contain original research. I recommend shortening it or ditching it! HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It is completely sourced, unlike the rest of the article. Original research happens when we do not use sources.
The "plot points" are actually discussed and properly interpreted. Dimadick ( talk) 09:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The article you are reverting to contains no references, lists books without discussing depictions. More importantly it fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. It contains no real-world perspective, writing on authorial intent, and literary analysis. There are limits to how much plot an article must have, not on sourced analysis. Dimadick ( talk) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Because serious analysis of this point is missing from this article. And because so-and-so is actually a reliable source which the article is lacking. Dimadick ( talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
SUMMARY: Should the article on the Nome King (Oz character) have an "analysis" section? Is the one here any good? HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
1. User:Dimadick's edit-summary of the reversion of deleting the "analysis" section said "it is supposed to reflect third-party reliable sources". That is certainly true, but it is not the only criterion. As I understand it, a Wikipedia article is supposed to be FACTUAL, RELEVANT, and BRIEF. An article about, say, a famous actor, is not supposed to include unimportant information like his shirt size, and it is not supposed to include a survey of what all the critics on the internet thought about him. The fact that an essayist named Susan Rahm drew a fanciful analogy between the Nome King and industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller and JP Morgan is, as User:Dimadick says, supported by a reliable online source. But why should anyone care about what Susan Rahm thinks? She's a professor of English at Pacific Lutheran University who published an essay in a not-very-notable book. (She seems to have written three books of her own, all obscure.) My understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding articles about books is that generally, a critic's analysis should only be included EITHER if the critic is notable (sufficiently so to merit his own Wikipedia page), OR, if the analysis contributes something significant to the reader's understanding. Wikipedia articles are NOT supposed to be comprehensive surveys of the online critical literature.
2. Almost all of the "analysis" section consists of plot summary, with occasional observations of what some essayists have written thrown in, and most of those are very obvious points, not really worth mentioning. (Examples: "Zipes believes that Baum was essentially a fairy tale writer." Well, of course. Has anyone ever called him anything else??? And, "Suzanne Rahn has argued that the misleading description of the King serves as a lesson to child readers about the danger of taking people at face value." Do we really need Wikipedia, or Susanne Rahn, to tell us that? And, "In the return of the Nome King in The Emerald City of Oz (1910), the Bells see him once again as a slave owner." Again, this is not surprising or thought-provoking information. OF COURSE he's a slave-owner; in Ozma of Oz he states bluntly that the royal family of Ev are "...not my prisoners, but my slaves, whom I purchased from the King of Ev" and in The Emerald City of Oz, the narrator states "... he had resolved ... to enslave Princess Ozma and little Dorothy and all the Oz people,...") The whole section is like this: a tissue of plot summary studded with a few very obvious descriptive points from obscure essayists.
3. In fact, I only see ONE point in the entire section which is at all interesting or worth keeping: Gore Vidal's published opinion. Now THAT is a notable opinion.
I'm not gonna get into an edit-war, so I'll wait and see if other editors chime in and a consensus emerges. But I really think this whole section (with the possible exception of the reference to Vidal) is a waste of space. I'd like to see what other editors think.
Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Really, there's just too much pointless summarizing of the plots of books in the "analysis" section. What purpose does it serve to recount what happens in the first few books which feature the Nome King? That is not analysis. Undergraduate students get points deducted from their papers and reports if they waste space recounting plots of the works they are supposed to be analyzing, instead of analyzing them.
And if you're gonna summarize the plots of these books, why not include all of them? Why not summarize The Magic of Oz, and Kabumpo in Oz, and The Gnome King of Oz, and Pirates in Oz, and Handy Mandy in Oz too?
HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 07:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Nome Kingdom page were merged into Nome King on 14 July 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Nome Kingdom was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 October 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Nome King. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Is it possible that Baum's Nome King was based in part on Friedrich de la Motte-Fouque's Alberich? I personally see quite a bit of similarity between these two villains, including a propensity to enslave surface-dwellers and an all-consuming desire to harm the entire human race. What do you think? 67.170.215.166 ( talk) 02:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This new section entitled "Analysis" seems very much too long and wordy, contains way too much pointless plot summary of the books in which the Nome King appears, and may contain original research. I recommend shortening it or ditching it! HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It is completely sourced, unlike the rest of the article. Original research happens when we do not use sources.
The "plot points" are actually discussed and properly interpreted. Dimadick ( talk) 09:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The article you are reverting to contains no references, lists books without discussing depictions. More importantly it fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. It contains no real-world perspective, writing on authorial intent, and literary analysis. There are limits to how much plot an article must have, not on sourced analysis. Dimadick ( talk) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Because serious analysis of this point is missing from this article. And because so-and-so is actually a reliable source which the article is lacking. Dimadick ( talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
SUMMARY: Should the article on the Nome King (Oz character) have an "analysis" section? Is the one here any good? HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
1. User:Dimadick's edit-summary of the reversion of deleting the "analysis" section said "it is supposed to reflect third-party reliable sources". That is certainly true, but it is not the only criterion. As I understand it, a Wikipedia article is supposed to be FACTUAL, RELEVANT, and BRIEF. An article about, say, a famous actor, is not supposed to include unimportant information like his shirt size, and it is not supposed to include a survey of what all the critics on the internet thought about him. The fact that an essayist named Susan Rahm drew a fanciful analogy between the Nome King and industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller and JP Morgan is, as User:Dimadick says, supported by a reliable online source. But why should anyone care about what Susan Rahm thinks? She's a professor of English at Pacific Lutheran University who published an essay in a not-very-notable book. (She seems to have written three books of her own, all obscure.) My understanding of Wikipedia policy regarding articles about books is that generally, a critic's analysis should only be included EITHER if the critic is notable (sufficiently so to merit his own Wikipedia page), OR, if the analysis contributes something significant to the reader's understanding. Wikipedia articles are NOT supposed to be comprehensive surveys of the online critical literature.
2. Almost all of the "analysis" section consists of plot summary, with occasional observations of what some essayists have written thrown in, and most of those are very obvious points, not really worth mentioning. (Examples: "Zipes believes that Baum was essentially a fairy tale writer." Well, of course. Has anyone ever called him anything else??? And, "Suzanne Rahn has argued that the misleading description of the King serves as a lesson to child readers about the danger of taking people at face value." Do we really need Wikipedia, or Susanne Rahn, to tell us that? And, "In the return of the Nome King in The Emerald City of Oz (1910), the Bells see him once again as a slave owner." Again, this is not surprising or thought-provoking information. OF COURSE he's a slave-owner; in Ozma of Oz he states bluntly that the royal family of Ev are "...not my prisoners, but my slaves, whom I purchased from the King of Ev" and in The Emerald City of Oz, the narrator states "... he had resolved ... to enslave Princess Ozma and little Dorothy and all the Oz people,...") The whole section is like this: a tissue of plot summary studded with a few very obvious descriptive points from obscure essayists.
3. In fact, I only see ONE point in the entire section which is at all interesting or worth keeping: Gore Vidal's published opinion. Now THAT is a notable opinion.
I'm not gonna get into an edit-war, so I'll wait and see if other editors chime in and a consensus emerges. But I really think this whole section (with the possible exception of the reference to Vidal) is a waste of space. I'd like to see what other editors think.
Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 09:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Really, there's just too much pointless summarizing of the plots of books in the "analysis" section. What purpose does it serve to recount what happens in the first few books which feature the Nome King? That is not analysis. Undergraduate students get points deducted from their papers and reports if they waste space recounting plots of the works they are supposed to be analyzing, instead of analyzing them.
And if you're gonna summarize the plots of these books, why not include all of them? Why not summarize The Magic of Oz, and Kabumpo in Oz, and The Gnome King of Oz, and Pirates in Oz, and Handy Mandy in Oz too?
HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 07:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)