Talk:The Brave Little Tailor

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: Short story Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Aarne-Thompson classification

The 2nd paragraph dealing with this arcane (or expert) classification should be put in a section by itself towards the end of the article.

The general reader will be unfamiliar with this system, and most likely won't care enough to learn it. Nor should they.

For the shake of balance and proportion, this information should be moved towards the end, and a disclaimer should be blended into the text to inform the average reader that this is information aimed towards experts (aka folklorists(?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.131.100 (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose both such maneuvers/manoeuvres, though the concern raised in the first can be addressed:

WP:LEAD sections are summaries of entire article contents; we do not bury the lead by hiding basic information about a subject at the bottom of articles because we don't think kids will be interested in it. WP is written for folklorists just as much as it is for school children, or biologists, or truck drivers. Given my own background, I would absolutely expect at least the basic classification information to be in the lead.
Wikipedia never uses disclaimers in articles.

That said, there's certainly no need to preserve all the minor classification details in the lead; that more properly belongs in a section on motifs, and so I moved it there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf's stratagem?

As I recall, Gandalf congratulated Bilbo for distracting the trolls. Zoetropo (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Comments by the nom are ignored due to his being blocked for sockpuppeting, but this discussion has been open for over a week and we have two good faith editors supporting the move with solid reasoning and no objections. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Valiant Little Tailor → The Brave Little Tailor – As google search for The Brave Little Tailor gives overwhelmingly more results than The Valiant Little Tailor. --Action Hero Shoot! 12:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion concerning whether or not the article should be renamed and moved; but I do have an opinion about the reasoning by Action Hero. Simply performing a pair of Google searches and counting hits is not a scientific or reliable method of researching the popularity of a word or phrase, and for several reasons:
- It fails to allow for the same article or essay being posted on multiple web pages.
- It does not take into consideration the quality and/or reliability of the individual hits.
- There is a Disney film called The Brave Little Tailor (with Mickey Mouse in the title role), which is probably responsible for a large percentage of the hits in that search.

I believe a better approach would be to search for reliable sources on the topic, such as encyclopedias, scholarly textbooks, etc.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google book search could give better choice. Action Hero Shoot! 08:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Valiant Little Tailor has 1,780 resuls while The Brave Little Tailor has 3,240 results. This story is for kids. When people write books for kids they will use easy words. Brave is a word known by school kids, where as valiant is not known by some kids.Action Hero Shoot! 09:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Action Hero. I'll agree that everything you've written so far is technically correct. But I'm not convinced that those criteria are what we should be using to determine what the title of the article should be.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, what to do next? Keep the title as it is?Action Hero Shoot! 11:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would be inappropriate for me to continue this discussion because of this: (click here).
Richard27182 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the rename idea is a valid question to ask, even if the nom was sockpuppeteering on some other issue. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with better rationale than nominator's: The folktale comes to us from Grimm's, and in English is variously translated, most often as either "Brave" or "Valiant". As the terms are both synonymous and source-attested, other rationales need to be looked at; neither title is "wrong". The WP:COMMONNAME is the one with "Brave" (after excluding both "Wikipedia" and "Disney" from search results). While this could be thought of as less WP:PRECISE because it's easily confused with the Disney short based on it, that would actually be an incorrect analysis. We apply the PRECISE analysis before any consideration of WP:AT#DISAMBIGUATION, and we have and use disambiguation methods for a reason. If it were renamed, it raises a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC problem, since the folktale is obviously the primary topic for the name, not the obscure Disney cartoon. But that is true regardless of what title this article is at, actually. So even if it were not renamed, the redirect The Brave Little Tailor should still go to this page, not to the Disney piece, which is at its proper title Brave Little Tailor (already sufficient disambiguation from The Brave Little Tailor, per WP:SMALLDETAILS). Thus, if The Brave Little Tailor should redirect here anyway, and it is the COMMONNAME, then it should be the title, undisambiguated, and DAB hatnotes can distinguish between the two articles. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support the change but for somewhat different reasons than SMcCandlish. I'm still kind of new at this, and I admit I'm not familiar with many of the "WP:........" policies he states. (That's not his fault, it's mine.) Anyway my opinion is that the best English translation of the original title should be used. Apparently the original German title is "Das tapfere Schneiderlein." I checked several translation sites (I don't mean just counting hits; I mean actually following the links and reading the pages.) And it turns out that "brave" and "valiant" are both correct translations for the word "tapfere"; but "brave" definitely appears more frequently. So my choice would be to use "The Brave Little Tailor" as the title for the article. (With whatever disambiguation/undisambiguation is appropriate.)
Richard27182 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "vote" or comment, but rather a question. As I've written before, I'm still relatively new here and am not familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies. When the time comes to determine consensus, how should we treat contributions from accounts determined to be "sock puppets" and indefinitely blocked? (In this case, the initiator.) What is the official Wikipedia policy on this?
Richard27182 (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this move request appears to have support, the fact that the nom is now blocked is less relevant. It will simply not be counted as a vote when the admin closes this discussion. At the moment there isn't enough support for the move, yet.... Tiggerjay (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.