Jump to content

Talk:The Frogs Who Desired a King

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut from the article

[edit]

A subliminal reference to this fable is a frequently-circulated bit of office humor, showing a stork trying to devour a frog, with the frog's humanized arms and hands reaching out and squeezing the stork's neck tightly. The moral of this "office fable" is its caption: "Never give up."

I'm calling that out as original research. If there's a citation for this being a "subliminal reference" to the Frogs fable, I'd love to see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I here again see the limitations on strictly applying the principle of WP:OR. 1. the request is culturally ridiculous, 2. the request is formally correct. I think the error of WP:OR in this case is that there is no adaption to what it applies to. For example 232+167=399 [citation needed]! Everybody knows that, but a citation can't be found! Very few would care if there is actually an external source that alleges that "More politically minded readers"... etc.. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed through the logic of the tag left on 13 September 2010 and deleted the para speculating on what 'more politically minded readers' might think. Rather than 'original research', it is pure Point of View unsupported by any of the sources cited in the article or by the original text. It therefore has no place in an encyclopaedic article.

I have also added to the Allusions section and rewritten it. It is not enough simply to list use by other writers; such material also needs a context. Some of the material that was there has now been shifted to other sections where they fit better. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein references

[edit]

Heinlein refers to King Log in "Tunnel In The Sky". I'll add the reference. --Phersh (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the guidelines on popular references, it is suggested that these should not be mentioned unless they shine new light on the subject of the article. I wonder how relevant any of the Heinlein references are. Maybe they should all be deleted. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Frogs Who Desired a King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Frogs_Who_Desired_a_King&oldid=1204798676"