JClanton12

Hi! I think I'm supposed to say hi to other classmates on their talk page.--KBMathews (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

HI!!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivana.mileusnic (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It says it autosigned, did you remember the squiggles to sign it? JClanton12 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

JClanton12, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JClanton12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 18:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

JClanton12, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JClanton12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Course outline

Thanks for providing a link to your university course and assignment outline, which is excellent. I also took a look at your sandbox. Some of the stuff to be looked at there would take you WP:OFFTOPIC, especially following up every use of the derived idiom "to cry wolf". None would be relevant unless they show knowledge of the fable, which is the subject of the WP article. The other cause of concern is the proposal to drag in the Washington and the cherry tree myth, which is dealt with elsewhere in WP. It is only made relevant to The Boy Who Cried Wolf at present by being linked with the fable in an academic article, which I note is also among your references. I send good wishes to you and your colleague in your research. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your recent additions indicate you know nothing about proper formatting in WP - see MOS:SECTIONCAPS. Again, plot summaries should be concise WP:PLOTSUM, because this is an encyclopedia, not a playground for amateur story tellers. Your course leader has said that you should acquaint yourself with the medium and you have failed to do so. Any more inept work like this will be immediately deleted. Why don't you create what you want to say in your sandbox first and get your supervisor to comment? Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Svasia, Jclanton12, Aschuet1, I've copied the work to a separate page at User:JClanton12/The Boy Who Cried Wolf (draft) so it's easier to review. Here are my notes:

• Make sure that the content doesn't get too general. The main focus is the Cry Wolf fable, so you should approach the fable's history as it's specific to that fable. For example, the main point from your proposed additions in the history section is this:

Aesop is frequently credited as the author of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, however there is speculation that it is instead part of an oral tradition that predated the writer.

This is already in the main article on Aesop's fables at Aesop's_Fables#Fictions_that_point_to_the_truth and in the Aesop article at Aesop#Fabulist. I do think that there's merit in briefly mentioning that he may not be the author, but I don't know that it needs much more information than that. (On a side note, if you want to use the above sentence, feel free - especially as it's essentially based on your research.)

• Be careful as to what is placed in the plot/synopsis section. This is generally supposed to be a brief summary of the fable, so it's not really a good place to add in information about something like the Rule of Three. Things like that would be better suited for a themes section. Also, there's no need to give the alternate title, as the title you have here is already in the history section.

I think that there is merit in mentioning the difference between the amount of times that the boy cried out, but you will need to have a good source for this that highlights this difference. I did a quick search and found this academic source offhand. Since Sweetpool50 mentioned brevity, a potential way to work this in could be as follows:

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who tricks nearby villagers into thinking wolves are attacking his flock by repeatedly calling out for help, with the number differing depending on the particular rendition of the story. When a wolf actually does appear and the boy again calls for help, the villagers believe that it is another false alarm and the sheep are eaten by the wolf.

I've tagged them in the hopes of getting some feedback on this and a potential suggestion on how to rephrase this.

• On a related note, only include something in the article if you have a reliable source that explicitly states the claim. For example, while the writing principle of the rule of three is interesting, the source used doesn't actually mention anything about the fable. It's also questionable as a source, as it's a business website and is set up to primarily appeal to potential clients. A better source would be something like an academic or scholarly text or journal that discussed the fable and mentions that it follows the writing principle.
• With the study, it looks like this is already in the article under the history section so I'm not really sure how much more detail needs to be added. I do like the idea of marking it with a new section or subsection, as it is something kind of separate from the prior paragraph about the alternate titles and publishing history. Maybe just name it "applications"?
• I like the idea of a reception section, however the content you have here looks to be more interpretations of the source material than receptions per se. For example, I'm a little leery about moving the Croxall portion there as it's more of an application type of deal - he's not really reacting to the story as much as he's applying and comparing it to political alarmism - it's not really the same thing as reception. This would also be a good place to put any interpretations of the fable's themes. I would normally suggest a separate section for themes, but since this fable is so short I'm not sure if there's enough out there for this.
• Have you thought about an adaptation section? This wouldn't include things such as a reprinting of the fable, but re-imagingings of the story. I know that there are some out there - for example, there was a 1943 animated short by MGM, "The Boy And The Wolf". (Mentioned here and here.) There was also a Hello Kitty adaptation, if you can believe it. The adaptations should have some assertion of notability to be included, such as being mentioned in a reliable source or at the very least, be put out by a notable outlet such as MGM or Sanrio.

I hope that this helps some! I think that there are some good ideas here, but they need to be phrased a little more tightly. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)