Talk:The Prioress's Tale

Length
This article could be longer, but it is already of very high-quality.


 * Number 1you are unsigned, and that makes me wonder.
 * Number 2why would you just say that 'The article could be longer.' Propose some suggestions, give some critical :analysis, research some sources.  You have contributed nothing by that remark.--Rocketrye12 02:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)what?

If there is discussion regarding merging the article on Madame Eglantine with the article on The Prioress's Tale, I think it makes good sense. The description of Madame Eglantine within the General Prologue of The Canterbury Tales is too short to warrant an article on its own, and there isn't much more than can be said about her, unless scholarly details are included (i.e., citations from various scholarly resources on Madame Eglantine as a character). While I am wholly behind that project, I feel that, at present, the article on Madame Eglantine as it currently stands is not useful enough to warrant its own space on Wikipedia, and the information contained within would better serve as a supplement to The Prioress's Tale. Furthermore, the article as it is currently written is actually very poorly written, and doesn't enhance a reader's knowledge of the Prioress, her tale, or her relationship to other characters within The Canterbury Tales. I therefore suggest that the information be rewritten, and merged with the article on the tale itself, until such time as further research warrants its own article. -- Faton4paws (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitic publications?
Should this really be under the category? The prioress herself is the object of ridicule with this tale. I will remove it.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)