Talk:Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius/Archive 1

Old comments
what a great parallel to the Wikipedia world. Danny 02:29 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

To paraphrase Heinrich B&ouml;ll, the resemblance is neither intentional nor unintentional, but simply inevitable. Jmabel 07:41, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Moved from "Talk:Uqbar"
''Uqbar was an article, but is now a redirect to Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. This is moved from it talk page.''

The article title is strongly reminescent of J.L. Borges' famous Story "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" (which by the way is, to some degree, about an encyclopedia), but is there any evidence that Uqbar exists elsewhere? Kosebamse 21:35, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is strong evidence against the factual existence of Uqbar, but the matter goes beyond "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius." See especially http://www.uqbar.it. Since that is in Italian and has no copyright notices, I will take the liberty of attempting to translate the relevant paragraph here. Warning: I'm not fluent in Italian. Any corrections to the translation that follows are welcome.


 * 'Uqbar is a place that does not exist, but which was described perfectly and exhaustively in 1874 by Silas Haslam "History of the Land Called Uqbar" which was based on and earlier treatise of 1641) by Johannes Valentinus Andreä, "Lesbare und Lesenswerte Bemerkungen über das Land Ukkbar in Klein Asien". The great Jorge Luis Borges made of it a metaphysico-literary case, sketching capably the outlines of this foreign world with many disquieting aspects.'

I believe that even the author of this passage has been somewhat taken in, and that the referenced works by Silas Haslam and Johannes Valentinus Andreä are also imaginary! For a good treatment of imaginary works in Jorge Luis Borges's work, see http://www.themodernword.com/borges/borges_hexagon.html, which playfully discusses them as if they are real.

I believe that Silas Haslam himself is real and that his A General History of Labyrinths (Vienna, 1888) really exists (and that's why Borges would have heard of him). I seriously doubt the existence of Johannes Valentinus Andreä.

There's a worthwhile Wikipedia article to be had in all of this, but it's not the one we've got.

Jmabel 06:24, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Correcting myself: It appears Johannes Valentinus Andreä may well have been historical and may well have been the man who first imagined the Rosicrucians. If this is true, he deserves a Wikipedia article, no? But in any event I am sure that the work attributed to him in Borges's story is imaginary. Jmabel 02:01, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Given that no one has engaged me on this, I am now going to try to write the appropriate article. It would appear that the previous content of this page is a (rather good) work of fiction, so here it is for your delectation:


 * "Bordered by the Kintaas Empire in the North and West, and by the Traline River in the east, this kingdom was ruled by a dynasty of scholar-kings during the late 9th and early 10th centuries. The economic base of Uqbar consisted primarily of semi-nomadic animal husbandry.  Clans of shepherds maintained distinct villages primarily for winter use and travelled throughout the north eastern regions of Urtyne during the summer.  While the inherant instability of the tribal/nomadic system prevented the dynasty (founded by Komol Ty in roughly 870 c.e.) from exerting significant political control in the region, the dynasty distinguished itself as a patron of various arts, and glimpses of a rich cultural legacy survive.  In particular, the kingdom was notable for epic and extremely long poems aparently derived from nomadic songs and stories.  In general these consisted of a few core stanzas which were repeated almost endlessly with minor but significant changes in the lyrics.  The name for these poems was urik-yamga, or "endless river," implying that, in theory, the recitation could be infinite.  Indeed, on during major festivals, a poem relating to the festival was often recited for days on end by a school of reciters working in rotation.  The dynasty also supported metal craftsmen who are in particular known for crafting round mirrors, some of which have been found in grave sites as far away as China."

-- Jmabel 14:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) 

Post-merge discussion
Curioser and curioser. I now believe that Haslam is probably (but not certainly) fictional, and Johannes Valentinus Andreä actually existed! -- Jmabel 08:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

slight changes needed, IMHO...
I have given this article a slight edit. I still find much of the language above-my-head. I realize the plot is complicated, but this article reads too much like an academic paper. Sincerely, Kingturtle 16:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

Thanks Kingturtle. This is very useful. Because the Wiki numbering mechanism doesn't let me intersperse replies into the above without messing up your numbering, and I know you like to leave the record of discussions perfectly intact, I'm replicating in order to reply. I plan to address nearly all of these, I'll intersperse my remarks as I do.Jmabel


 * 1) I've changed "We" to "the reader" (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Good idea, I think yours reads better. -- Jmabel 18:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) much reprinted sounds vague and POV. maybe find specific numbers...or find another way to say it. (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * 15 editions in Argentina by 1971, based on the bibliography referenced at Jorge Luis Borges, which unfortunately doe not continue tracking past Borges's death. I've put that 1971 fact in the article. If I can find something more recent, I'll add it. -- Jmabel 18:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely add this. Kingturtle 10:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The part about Alastair Reed's translation confuses me. If Ficciones was published in 1944, how could Reed be publishing his translation in Ficciones in 1962?  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004).
 * Hmm. I thought my wording here was clear: "...translated by Alastair Reed as part of a collaborative translation of the entirety of Ficciones published in 1962." I've tried rewording; tell me if you like it any better. --Jmabel 18:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, better. Kingturtle 10:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) How does the imaginary world of Tlön anticipate the Terra of Ada, or Ardor?  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Because the "real" world becomes obsessed with a fictional world, to the point where people are more interested in the fictional world than in the real one. I'll get that into the article. -- Jmabel 01:42, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * "anticipates the Terra of Nabokov's Ada, or Ardor"...more explanation is needed to explain Terra. and how the imaginary world of Tlön is similar. I still don't get it :) Kingturtle 19:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've tried again, at greater length. Tell me if it is clear to you now. -- Jmabel 23:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I entitled the first section after the spoiler warning "Overview"...maybe you can think of a better title for those two introductory paragraphs.  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Not good, because after your edits there are two "overview" sections. I've changed this to "Themes" and "Publication history". -- Jmabel 18:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) What is "a heresiarch" ?  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Leader of a heretical sect. It is the right word for this. Borges uses the Spanish-language equivalent ("heresiarca") and his translators uniformly use "heresiarch". I'm don't think the word deserves a Wikipedia entry: "heresy" has one, so I'll define heresiarch and link (redirect) to heresy. -- Jmabel 19:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I realize the plot is complicated, but the plot summary needs to be dumbed down. There are too many sentences that are 20+ words long. Some are even 40 words long.  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Yeah, a lot of the more pretentious prose there came out of some post-modernist's lengthy screed that used to be in the article on Borges. I moved a lot of it to here, because it was just about this story, not about Borges in general. I edited it a bit then, but I suppose I can do more, and I will. But by the very nature of the story this is about, there are limits to how far this article can be "dumbed down". -- Jmabel 01:16, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've taken a shot at it. I've separated out plot and themes, which should help. I've given brief explanations of a lot of philosophical terms. I promise that I'm not the one who introduced the Latin terms, etc., into the article, but they actually are correct, and they are what academic philosophers use, so I think they should be retained and explained, rather than removed. Let me know if anything is still obscure. -- Jmabel 05:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I got my degree in political science. And I still am not getting this :) Kingturtle 10:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Kingturtle, is it the plot you are not "getting" or the particular passage (which I didn't introduce, but I do understand and have tried to clarify) with the Latin terms, or what? If the latter, those terms all do have articles of their own, and I don't want to try to rewrite them all here. On the other hand, if it's the plot that's confusing, I'll take another shot. -- Jmabel 05:56, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding the plot at all. I understand the theory, and the premise, but nothing about how it unfolds to the reader. Kingturtle 19:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, tried the "plot" section again. Especially, I've added to it an introductory paragraph explaining something of the startegy of the narration.
 * 1) "It emerges" to whom? the reader? or a character?  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * The narrator; I've now made that unambiguous. -- Jmabel 00:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) "it became clear" to whom? the reader? or a character?  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * The members of the fictional society; I believe that now should be unambiguous. -- Jmabel 00:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Maybe Tlön should be its own article?  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Uqbar used to have its own, but now, like Tlön, redirects here. I was trying to salvage it as a separate article and User:The Anome twice turned it into a redirect. I really don't feel like picking a fight over these. If there is to be an article on Tlön, it should probably about how the concept has taken on a life of its own outside this story.-- Jmabel 19:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Parts of the summary should be broken into subgroups.  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Maybe. I've split this down better to plot & themes. I don't see any natural ways to subdivide further, but I'd be glad to have someone else's suggestions. -- Jmabel 05:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) "non-theistic tree-falling-in-the-forest Berkeleian idealism toward its logical breaking point".....um....huh? please translate this into something the non-scholar can understand.  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * I hope it is clearer in my rewrite. You'll have to tell me. -- Jmabel 05:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Better.
 * 1) What is the "Berkeleian God"?  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * I've now tried to address this in the "themes" section near the beginning of the article. Kingturtle, do you think this is enough or that I need to do more. -- Jmabel 19:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * nicely done. Kingturtle 19:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) "The picture is further complicated by the fact that other authors (REAL OR IMAGINARY?) have chosen to join Borges..."  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * Real. The examples cited are factual. I'll clarify. -- Jmabel 19:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) External links should be removed from the middle of the article and placed at the end.  (-copied from Kingturtle note 12 Mar 2004)
 * I've gotten most of these out of there, or demoted to bracketed numbers at the ends of sentences that really need citation, a common enough practice throughout Wikipedia. I see no way to avoid linking http://www.uqbar.it, unless you think I should "nowiki" it, which seems perverse to me: I am making a relevant statement about that website. I don't see a different way to do this without simply making it less clear. If you do, please feel free. -- Jmabel 01:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In short, I've done my best to address your concerns. This is never going to be an article for any less than a roughly college-level reader: "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" has at least four layers of reality, discusses at least half a dozen deep philosophical questions, refers to over a dozen fascinating but generally obscure intellectual figures, is full of inside jokes, and was written by a genius. One can only simplify and explain that so far. I ended up writing over a dozen other Wikipedia articles in the course of writing this because it referred to encyclopedia-worthy people or groups not previously mentioned in the Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 05:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I commend you on your efforts. I don't know if it will help you or not, but consider looking at Ulysses (novel) to other approaches to complicated texts. Kingturtle 10:44, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I've taken a look at the Ulysses article. To be honest, I'm not very impressed. There is probably not a fact in the article that couldn't be learned from one source (The New Bloomsday Book by Harry Blamires, which remarkably is not cited as a reference). The second sentence of the article begins, "It is sometimes cited as the greatest novel of the 20th century..." but it doesn't give even one example of anyone saying so (it's true, and all, but consider your remark below on my, "many people, including Immanuel Kant". At least I was citing one concrete example.) You could read the article and still not know where to look for a good text of the book: this on a book where scholars argue whether the 1984 "corrected" edition is or is not an improvement in certain places. The few quotations are unsourced. Given the questions you have thrown my way, this doesn't seem like something you would hold up as a model. I'd also add that the Ulysses article seems to me to be aimed entirely at people who have never read the book, which wasn't particularly my intention here. After all Ulysses is a long, famously difficult novel (there are certainly some passages I've never slogged through, myself) and "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", although comparably dense, is an 11-page story. -- Jmabel 05:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! :) I think i was in dire need of sleep when i recommended you look at that article :) Kingturtle 19:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

a few more points
sincerely, Kingturtle 10:40, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) "Through the vehicle of fantasy or speculative fiction, this story explores philosophical questions." What are the specific philosophical questions? Well, I'd already addressed this in the following paragraphs, but I've now written a single summary paragraph. -- Jmabel 05:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) "Many people, including Immanuel Kant"...rather than say many people, list two or three other specific names along with Kant. This is going to be a tricky one. It's pretty much a cliche criticism of Berkeley. I just looked at the article "George Berkeley", hoping that it would cite others, but they just cite Kant. I'll just drop the "many people" part, because tracking down quotations to that effect seems like a lot of effort in a direction that really doesn't interest me right now. -- Jmabel 05:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) "When Borges writes 'The metaphysicians...."....is Borge writing that in the short story? if so, give the page number. Or did Borge right that later, in a different text?  I've now footnoted the quotations by page number. Yes, the Borges quotations are all from the story itself. -- Jmabel 05:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. Kingturtle 19:29, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've made a few changes- nothing major, mostly typos.
 * 1) One thing I wasn't completely sure of was the tense of the Ezra Buckley section- I changed it from present to past.  I can't see any reason for it to be in the present, but I may be wrong.
 * No problem. I was using a narrative present, past may be clearer. -- Jmabel 04:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The encyclopedia is beginning "like a mirror, to disseminate its own universe". Do mirrors disseminate their own universes?   Is this a quote, or is it just developing the heresiarch's opinion?
 * I'm being a little playful here, using in the article a metaphor that is clearly intended in the story. I'm not wedded to the metaphor. If you want to kill it, go ahead, but (by way of reflecting the themes in the story) I do want to smuggle in a mirror. But I can be a clever lad, I can smuggle it in without a metaphor if needs be. -- Jmabel 04:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) My other query is with the description of Berkeley as an "eminence grise". My dictionary says "a confidential agent, especially one exercising unsuspected or unofficial power".  Berkeley exercises unofficial power, but he's not anyone's confidential agent. Markalexander100 01:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Apparently I have misused the term and will replace it. -- Jmabel 04:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, your recent edit implies that the altases of Justus Perthes are said in the story to contain Uqbar. They are not. "A futile examination of one one the atlases of Justus Perthes strengthened my doubt" ("Tlön...", p. 112). I will restore the previous wording in that one place. Otherwise, no problem with your edits. -- Jmabel 04:45, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for Justus Perthes- my bad. Do something clever and non-metaphorical with the mirror, and I'll be happy. :) (added:) How about unlike a mirror? That's the point of the twist, after all. Markalexander100 05:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Borges is concerned in this story with the fact that propagation by mirror is only metaphorical. After all, the story is driven by "Mirrors and copulation are abominable..." For example, he certainly intends a mirror metaphor in the relation of the Anglo-American Cyclopaedia to the Britannica. Right now, I'm 90% out of commission with a back injury & only very briefly on line. I'll look at all this in a few days, assuming my recovery continues on its current trajectory. -- Jmabel 04:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Get well soon! My take: the heresiarch's view is interesting because mirrors only reflect, rather than disseminate.  The heresiarch's view is by definition unorthodox. ;)  The article then begins with the imaginary world mirroring ours, before it starts to disseminate unlike a mirror. Markalexander100 02:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * TNX for good wishes; I'm now back up to maybe 30-45 mins/day on wikipedia. When I'm better, I'll try to write a whole section on the extended metaphor of replication/reflection (mirrors, badly replicated Britannica, non-matching copies of same book, hr&ouml;nir, Tl&ouml;n affecting Earth, etc.). Or if anyone else wants to take a shot, feel free. -- Jmabel 04:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

themes vs. plot
Are there particular reasons why themes proceeds plot in this article? IMHO it would read better if the plot summary came before the themes discussion. What do you think? Kingturtle 01:43, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Only reason is that this story is very much one of philosophical themes. The plot is distinctly secondary and almost implicit. I'm not wedded to this structure, but I do think it was a reasonable decision. -- Jmabel 04:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some questions raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following comment is copied from From Featured article candidates; the response is local here:
 * Reluctantly Object. Looking at other featured articles, I feel they should all set an example for other articles in the same genre -- having an elegant non-trivial format which helps highlight key pieces of information (useful for future authors of new articles of that type), treating some aspect of the subject, or a few of them, with special affection, &c. This article has excellent content, but is not a template model for others of its kind in any sense, in the tree structure of its TOC, the choice of major headings, the quality of its prose, or the creation of related pages that don't yet exist (to the contrary, there is parenthetical information repeated in this article which might better be left to linked-to articles). Despite the lengthy discussion of the book's publication process, there is an ISBN link to only one instance of the story discussed, that one in compilation.  There could be further and better-categorized links to external analyses of such an unusual work.   +sj+ 12:26, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

It's interesting that we do not have a single example yet of a featured article about a work of fiction. I'm not sure I see how complex a structure we can have for an article about an 11-page story. I am confident, though, that this is now the most comprehensive discussion of this story in English on the Internet; offhand, I doubt there is anything stronger in Spanish or any other language. Much of the material in this article is not otherwise available in English.
 * Good point. I have to take back what I said about creating subsidiary pages... I think that a good format for fiction articles is hard, and I don't mean to take that out on this fine article in particular.  Considering my vote.  +sj+
 * I still hope that someday we come up with a decent template for breaking up analyses and plot dissections into standard and general subsections. +sj+ 22:50, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "creation of related pages that don't yet exist." I wrote over a dozen satellite articles in writing this, including pretty good biographies of several people mentioned in the story (Xul Solar, for example). The only significant link for which I didn't write an article is Nestor Ibarra, because I cannot find any significant info about him. Are you saying there is too much about each of these people in the article? I think that since virtually all will be unknown to over 90% of English-speakers, it's worth having a short paragraph about each so that people can tell if they even care to read an article about the person. If you are saying that there is too much about Berkeley's philosophy, I don't know what to say. I added that material in response to previous requests, as you can see by examining the exchanges above. I suspect that this is a matter where one can't please everyone: "too much" in one person's view will be "too little" in another. I personally think Wikipedia articles should each be able to stand alone, but link to everything reasonably related. That is, if womeon comes to this to learn about "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", it should all be here; if they are tempted to learn about related topics, they are also in luck.

Are there ISBNs for books from the 1940s? I wouldn't begin to know where to look. -- Jmabel 04:22, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I only realized after your comment above that this is an 11-page story! (It's not at all obvious from the article itself, which lists inline refs such as ["Tlon..." pg 115] which, at first glance, suggest a full-length novella.  Now I understand why publication is generally in compilation.  (:  +sj+ 22:49, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

The following is copied from my talk page -- Jmabel 21:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Objections removed; meant to do it sooner but got bogged down this weekend. you can move this up to the 'uncontested' section of FAC at your leisure.


 * I do still hope that the article eventually
 * references more than one source of 3d-party analysis; (should be a collection of the analysis of others, not original analysis by the article's authors)
 * # puts the work in the context of the author's life and other works


 * - +sj+ 04:19, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

I think everything here that +sj mentions would be good additions to the article. -- Jmabel 21:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Open matters April 2004
I believe that I've dealt with most issues that have been raised, so I thought I'd summarize those that I'm aware are still open.


 * 1) How much has the story been reprinted? All we have in the article right now is number of Argentine editions of Ficciones as of 1971.
 * 2) If there are ISBNs for books from the 1940s and early 1960s (I'm not sure there are) we should add them.
 * 3) *There aren't. See below. - Jmabel 17:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) We should reference and summarize authoritative third party analysis.
 * 5) We should put the work in the context of the author's life and other works.
 * 6) *I've started a section =="Tlön..." in the context of Borges's life and works==. So far, it's really mainly just in the context of his life. The section should doubtless go on to talk about how the themes of this story this fits in with themes of his other writing & about Borges's interest in speculative fiction. I will get back to this eventually, but if anyone else wants to go there first, feel free. -- Jmabel 04:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I plan to work on the last two; the first two I'm not sure how best to pursue. Anyone else is welcome to pursue them, or to give me clues how best to pursue. -- Jmabel 04:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those changes look good! On the remaining questions: Question 1- do we care? I don't.  I don't see how it's relevant at all. Question 2: from ISBN: "The ISBN system was created in the United Kingdom in 1966 (then called Standard Book Numbering SBN) and adopted as international standard ISO 2108 in 1970." Which I think means no. Markalexander100 07:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been informed by User:Ww, who seems to know what he's talking about, that ISBN was not "retrospective": earlier books simply do not have ISBNs. Hope that settles the matter. -- Jmabel 17:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Other translations?
Apparently, a publisher called The Porcupine's Quill has out an English-language book of just this single story, ISBN 0889840725. Nothing on line says which translation they used, whether it is illustrated, etc. On the whole, a separate printing of a single story of this length seems excessive to me. However, if anyone can come up with information about this book (especially whose translation it uses), I'd like to add it to the article.

It would also be good to know if there are other published English-language translations. -- Jmabel 04:51, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I looked in and this edition was translated by James E. Irby and contains 22 illustrations by Rikki Ducornet and a folding map. I understand that one of the major reasons for publishing were the illustrations. --Frosty 00:46, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way - the illustration on the Amazon site from the front page of this edition looks good. Maybe we could adress Rikki herself for the illustration for this article? The copyright here needs to be resolved.
 * OK, I got mail from Rikki Ducornet with a permission to use her illustartion for Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis tertius from 1983 edition of the book.
 * Way cool. -- Jmabel 17:38, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion from Featured article candidates
I decided that the balance of opinion was to feature this article. The discussion from Featured article candidates is given below:

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
About a famous short story by Jorge Luis Borges that makes an enormous number of references to non-fictional individuals, many not well known in the English-speaking world. I believe that this article is the first good English-language guide for the perplexed. I didn't write all of it, but at this point it is mostly my work. -- Jmabel 05:08, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Lovely article (hence I'm moving this out of self-noms to uncontested). Jmabel, would you mind having a look at my copyedit?  In the spirit of being bold, I corrected what looked to me like obvious errors but given the subject matter I can't be entirely sure (especially inside quotes from the story). --Bth 10:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not supporting or opposing this one yet. I think it has potential, but it needs a lot of copyedits. Kingturtle 04:50, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Following some suggestions by Kingturtle, I've kept strengthening this. I'd appreciate a few more people weighing in, either to endorse as a Feature or to let me know how they'd like to see it improved. -- Jmabel 07:34, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This article has gone through some substantial edits. The article is more clear (as clear as such a topic can be). I endorse it now. But it would be helpful for others to give it the once-over. Kingturtle 19:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * A lovely article indeed. When I compare it to still-unfeatured articles like Congo Free State, however, it falls short.  Could use better wikification, structure.  +sj+ 12:05, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly Object Support. I'd like to see a better organizing template (broken into historical background / context of author's other works / plot summary / analysis by others), rather than a combination of (historical bakground + analysis). However, there are precious few serious articles on fiction in WP right now, and this is a notable  exception.  Looking at other featured articles, I feel they should all set an example for other articles in the same genre -- having an elegant non-trivial format which helps highlight key pieces of information (useful for future authors of new articles of that type), treating some aspect of the subject, or a few of them, with special affection, &c. This article has excellent content, but is not a template model for others yet...  there is parenthetical information repeated in this article which might better be left to linked-to articles, and information from other writers' analyses of the work which could be extracted and paraphrased.  Despite the lengthy discussion of the book's publication process, there is a link to only one published version of the story.  There could be further and better-categorized links to external analyses of such an unusual work.   +sj+ 12:26, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
 * Replying to some of this in article's talk page. -- Jmabel 04:06, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * With +sj's change of view, I have moved this to Nominations without objections.
 * Support. Presents quite a bit of valuable context.  Smerdis of Tlön 03:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Voynich
Recently added to the article by User:Leibniz


 * "It has been suggested that the undeciphered Voynich manuscript could have been a real-world inspiration for the encyclopedia of Tlön."

I suppose this statement makes itself true, but has it been suggested by anyone of scholarly significance? If so, can we please have a citation? If not, it doesn't belong in the article, especially not in a featured article. -- Jmabel 05:41, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Having never received a response, I'm removing the sentence. -- Jmabel 00:27, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)