Talk:Le Train de Nulle Part

Discussion
I took out all of the verbs from the text in this page, making it alot harder to read yes, but i think its a fun thing to do regarding to the book. It's not really koscher wikipedia-style, so if you want to revert it go right ahead. But, please, try to change the text instead, keeping the verbs out of it :D

By the way, if i made a mistake somewhere, an is perhaps where it doesn't belong, correct me please. Gkhan 11:48, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hrrm. I'm surprised nobody's gotten to this to revert it yet.  I'm not going to be the killjoy; I just know that the E-Prime talk page had an argument about that sort of thing.  It also looks kind of weird to have the author's quote itself contain verbs.  Azure Haights 19:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, I am gonna be the killjoy. It's not like the article gets much attention either way. Azure Haights 21:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting, people like me would like to learn something about the topic, so being able to understand the article is key. Providing quotes from the book is also good because it illustrates the point.  15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting concept, if not an interesting read. How about some sample passages to give a flavor of the verblessness?

Also, what exactly is the author's beef with verbs?

Hoo boy! An article about a book without verbs. Amazing. Constant enjoyment from new Wikipedia articles about previously unknown things. Coolness. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.197.240.134 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone removes the verbs from this article
Please discuss first. That's not a change to be undertaken lightly. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For several reasons. One, the above discussion broached the idea and decided against it. Two, that's how WP:BRD works; we have gone through the BR part, which leaves discussion. Three, I doubt that removing the verbs counts as the professional prose that we should aim for under Wikipedia's standards. If you'd rather have an edit war than discussion, though... :) -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, this is at present such a crappy little stub, I'd welcome someone doing anything to this articles, verbs or no. A bit of enthusiasm and application is what's required, and I'd rather not turn off the verb-challenged (or verb-challengers). FWIW. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are these "verb-challenged" and "verb-challengers"? Can I find them in the wild? :) -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. Well, this article awaits them!  And as far as I'm concerned, they can have it if they want... It can be their playground!  :)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm just not sure this article warrants much more than a stub, since it's little more than a curiosity. I've never heard of it outside of Wikipedia.
 * But hey, maybe someone can find some additional references? The Language Log has a dismissive entry about it, for instance. Is it an authoritative enough source? I am tickled by the closing line: "Seriously, I wonder whether some of the differences between American and French intellectual life can be explained by the fact that we Americans have the opportunity to get this sort of thing out of our systems in high school and college, while the French, with their more formal and rigid educational system, do not." Not sure it's true, but it's an entertaining thought. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)