Talk:Animal Farm

	This Books related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Comment

"Four legs good, two legs bad" being repeated endlessly is far worse if you think of it in sheep accent... "Four legs good, two legs b-a-a-a-a-a-d" ;) -- 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was in a play of Animal Farm once as Napoleon. Playing a bitter, twisted, self-obsessed, drink-sodden, megalomaniac pig was surprisingly easy. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

What about snakes, millipedes, kangaroos, infants and old people? (nod at the Sphinx) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Rebuild...

I did not keep most of the relevant sub-section of this from the Orwell page on the premise it was simply chatting about the plot, which in 2024 can easily be found elsewhere. And I did shove in a link to a good plot summary of it in the 'external links' bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Links?

I note you nixxed the Gutenberg link at the bottom, (@Cosmikdebris). Is this due to you not liking it there, or not liking Gutenberg itself? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I used that link as reference #1 so I thought it redundant to put it in twice. I love project Gutenberg! —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 17:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely wondered if it was due to the slight issue re: US copyright. Anyhows, while it is used as ref #1, I felt it was worth putting as a clear link at the bottom too [as I suspect not a huge amount of folks bother checking the ordinary ref links]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Plot etc...

My justification for not having those sections in RW AF's page is the following;

1. It is not that good [95% suspect it's a cut/paste off of WP]
2. It is better done elsewhere [I linked to one; the Cliff Notes]
3. It is not really missional for RW.
4. It adds a lot of waffly text with little value.

So, why (@Ioe bidome) did you restore it [or more correctly, pull it out of a memory hole]? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If I had known why you didn't want this text I wouldn't have copied it. I will revert it now Ioe bidome (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the god-king of this article [or any, for that matter]. I was mainly curious to your reasoning for adding/restoring it in the first place - you might have been planning to re-work it or something [something I considered doing, are capable of doing but then concluded would be a waste of my limited time - but you might feel differently]. Nor are my reasonings above immune to being disputed. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I was confused as to why this seemingly important text was left out, so I restored it. Ioe bidome (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Ans: 'because that is what WP is for'. Though this is no way RW policy or anything. My objection was more the quality/length/originality of the cut content, not the principle of it. If it was re-worked to be say, half the size [or less] of WP's corresponding content [currently 950 words] my concerns over 'quality'/'bloat' would be answered. As I said above, I could have done this myself, but I felt my attention was better-used giving the parent page George Orwell an overhaul/expansion. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)