Talk:Enfant terrible
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | The contents of the L'enfant terrible page were merged into Enfant terrible on 20 January 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
It's a real term. Should be moved to wiktionary. --LeeHunter 17:55, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. Strict definitions are dictionary entries. Unless there's some "encyclopedic" information to be had here, this article should be deleted. --Roger McCoy 02:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps a cited list of persons who have been labeled as such? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
The list of enfants terrible is interesting, but seems heavy on the side of US artists. And what on earth is Kevin Federline doing here? Doesn't the term imply some kind of revolutionary talent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.13.224.54 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 May 2006
The list isn't encyclopedic[edit]
While I'm sure many or all of the listed individuals meet the definition of Enfant terrible, lacking any verifiable and reliable sources it's non-encyclopedic. I'm going to remove the list for this reason. A list of Enfants terrible, so named in notable publications, would be valuable but must be sourced. -- Scientizzle 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
2007-02-6 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]
 | This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
removal of videogame character reference[edit]
I just removed a paragraph reading "Offnote: the Hideo Kojima video game series Metal Gear, it's main protagonist (Solid snake named as of Metal Gear Solid) and antagonist(s)(Liquid Snake and Solidus Snake of Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 respectivly) are supposedly the results of a gene cloning experiment, the three children are clones of the late 'Big Boss', Les Enfants Terribles is referenced by the character Revolver Ocelot / Shalashaska in the Playstation 2 videogame Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Libery." In my opinion this is not appropriate information for a wikipedia entry. It is akin to including a reference to how the term was used in passing in a novel of no historical literary value. The removed section did not in any way help the reader understand the term, and just because it is true does not make it interesting nor worthy of inclusion. I don't mean this rudely at all, rather I feel that often the ease of adding information can lead to trivial information being added to the detriment of the quality of the article. I chose not to also remove the Tolstoy reference because it does help understand how the term is used (as written here, not in situ) and because the work is a well known and significant work. On the other hand, the video game reference did not help the reader understand the term and the game, while important in relation to many other games that have come and gone, is very unlikely to hold a similar place in cultural history as Anna Karinina. I have to admit I have played the game, while I have not read the novel, philistine that I am. Also, I gather from earlier comments here that there used to be a list of people, fictional or otherwise, to which the term had been or might be applied, but it is no longer here. I have not looked in the history to review it. However, I do think the entry would not benefit from such a list and is better off this way. Nothing is really gained by lists of examples of that sort. Some articles are improved by a list of cultural references, but usually I find them to include a long list of unimportant information ("The term was used in the 3rd season of Gilligan's Island by the Professor 00:03:14 after the second commercial break"... "Happy Flowers" notably never used the term in any of their lyrics"... "A recent Gallup poll indicated that 94% of liberals believed Bush would be ignorant of the definition of the term while 23% of Conservatives responded "Who had a baby?" etc.) Go ahead and revert if you disagree. Perhaps the Metal Gear series has some vast cultural significance that I'm missing that warrants it being mentioned in all possible articles. I won't re-revert us into an edit war, I'll just try reading the Tolstoy instead. --Fitzhugh 06:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This should be deleted[edit]
After many attempts to make this article into something other than a dictionary entry, we have been left with a dictionary entry. It should therefore go the way of all dictionary entries. AnthroMimus (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)