Talk:Teaching with Calvin and Hobbes

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this a viable page?[edit]

Although I agree this is a notable book, most of the quote on this page are in no way memorable - many are just instructions used in lessons. Maybe the first quote could be put on the Bill Watterson page, but I don't see much else worth having here. My recommendation would be to move that first quote and delete this page. ~ UDScott 01:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, I wonder if it is a copyright violation.--Collingwood 10:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded it. It's bloated. Deleting it outright, however, seems extreme. The provenance alone makes each line memorable (and guffaw-inducing) -- at least to me, but I can't be the only one. I propose that it be trimmed to a dozen or fewer quotes. I'd be happy to take a crack at cutting it down, but I'd be just as happy if someone with a sympathetic and discerning eye took a crack at it. --Bookmaven3003 12:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I support UDScott's proposal, but I would leave a redirect behind rather than delete it. The quote attributed to an unnamed child within the second section might also be worth including there. I do appreciate what the authors have done, but I don't discern quotability in the rest of this material. It is good stuff but, like many other very good things, it isn't dictionary of quotations stuff. ~ Ningauble 15:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a defensible position here that this page is a viable -- and valuable -- addition to Wikiquote.

The referenced Wikiquote project page regarding quotability seems to offer little specific guidance in this case. That page addresses "Quotes by or about individuals," but here we are dealing with quotes from a notable work rather than quotes by a notable individual.

Is memorability the key factor in evaluating quotability in this case? Humor? The "witty, the pithy, the wise, the eloquent, and the poignant"? What we can take from the "quotability" project page is that "It may be a very difficult and very subjective determination to say that one quote is 'quotable' while another is not."

Is this truly not dictionary of quotations stuff? I think we can say that it is, according to the criteria offered on that referenced project page:

"Wikiquote aims to be an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations."

  • Accurate: Yes.
  • Comprehensive: "Wikiquote aims to have quotes from many different people, literary works, films, memorials, epitaphs and so on." -- The Teaching with Calvin and Hobbes page furthers that aim.
  • Notable: "A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work." -- We agree Teaching with Calvin and Hobbes is a notable book.
  • Quotations: Yes.

In any case, I cut 'er down, guided by my own fallible eye. The page is a different beast now, deserving of fresh and further consideration.

Will rolling the page, partially or otherwise, into the bloated Watterson page, or will allowing it to stand on its own, most benefit the Wikiquote project? --Bookmaven3003 15:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To further establish the quotability of this book: it has been quoted, in the 2010 edition of Looking for Calvin and Hobbes: The Unconventional Story of Bill Watterson and His Revolutionary Comic Strip (ISBN 9781441106858): "[Teaching with Calvin and Hobbes] features Calvin and Hobbes strips used to help teach vocabulary, problem solving, and creative writing. There's even a lesson testing imagination, where students need to answer the questions 'Why do you think scientists, inventors and architects need to be imaginative and creative?' and 'Why do people need anesthesia (pain killer)?'" --Bookmaven3003 14:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the cuts you made were good and the page is fine on its own. I believe the Unit 3 and Unit 4 quotes remain a bit dubious for their quotability (they still just seem like simple instructions rather than something that needs to be quoted here), but otherwise it looks fine. ~ UDScott 15:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the Unit 3 and Unit 4 quotes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)