Talk:Grand Grimoire

I'm trying to comment on the article - "The Grand Grimoire" - the section regarding Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, I believe, should have a spoiler warning for the game - however, being more of a user than write of wikipedia, I have no idea how to implement this, or what the standards are for doing so. 131.104.209.114 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC) bumpgrrl

never mind, I just fixed it by deleting the one line that bothered me.

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 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarl Warwick?
Who is this person and why should he be mentioned? Is this the same Tarl Warwick as the alt right conspiracy theorist from youtube? The only citations for the references to his translation is tue book itself on google books. I suspect mentions of "his translation" have only been added as a form of advertisement. If that's the case, ithas no reason to be mentioned here. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a biographical outline for this individual at https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8449711.Tarl_Warwick and he may be just what you say and the mention of his translation may also be just what you say. It seems fairly recent (2015) and perhaps not notable. Nlaylah (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Translations?
Can we get as many links to translations as possible, if there are any in English. Misty MH (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Karcist"
The first paragraph in the section on popular culture mentions the word "Karcist" as attributed by author Carter to the Grand Grimoire. Are there any sources for this claim, and indeed for the occurence of the word "karcist" within the Grand Grimoire? The word "Karcist" doesn't seem to have an established etymology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.26.181 (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Illogic"
The statements about date of authorship in the first paragraph are inconsistent and illogical. If it was "probably" written in the 19th century then it's unreasonable to cite 18th century claims immediately following as if they were plausible or equally likely. Of course it's fine for various scholarly claims to be inconsistent and even contradictory, but the language describing these claims should be adjusted if it is indeed the case that the consensus is for 19th century authorship. In particular the claim about an 18th century chapbook edition reads as if it is based on solid fact and directly contradicts the original 19th century claim. If that chapbook exists with a verified date, the "probably" line should be removed completely. If however the dating of this chapbook is dubious or debated, then that should be stated as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.250.170 (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree, I have removed the claim until more significant references are provided. Dkspartan1835 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)