Talk:Authorial intent

That second-to-last paragraph seems a little funny. --74.41.68.106 19:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Man, I'm gonna HAVE to add something about the Star Drive/Nemesis thing. Because hooboy, the ridiculous. -hx 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aheh. Hm. Should probably note TFU Longhorn... --M Sipher 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Whot abooot 'im? (I'm blanking.) -Derik 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

According to author intent (Dan Khanna), he's a new form for Ramulus. --ItsWalky 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh hey, nice to know! He's a cipher, so I suppose that author intent informs our read of this blank area of continuity.

How do we handle that? *looks* Yeah, that's about right. Could stand to be more enthusiastic (or at least informative) about the subject... Thanks Walky!

(So I take it I'm completely misremembering Torca being named Deathblow his original color scheme? Does anyone have a scan of those promo material for a trivia note about the color scheme on Torca page then? I have the Torca toy- I can photograph that for his toys section...) -Derik 20:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Author intent.

Authorial? I think you just made that word up. (kidding!) Its not like it is a sentence. "Author intent" is like a compound word. Maybe "author-intent" would be more technically correct. - Starfield 18:53, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Apparently the actual term is "Authorial intentionality", just to be totally convoluted. --Jeysie 19:06, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Even in the context of that Wikipedia article, they use the phrase in different tenses - "Authorial intent" is used in the first sentence of the "Literary theory" section (and "Authorial intention" is also used lower down). It's a perfectly valid phrase. Whereas "author" is not an adjective, and the article at no point uses it as an adjective - the adjectival form is "authorial" [It *does* use "author's intent", which I gave as another alternative, but discarded because unnecessary punctuation marks in titles should be avoided - for the apostophe specifically, anyone editing in M$ Word without altering the default setting would have it turned into a "rich text" equivalent, which would break links to the page; and if there's any more database glitches (allspark forfend), the single quotation mark/apostophe is one of the characters that needs "escaped" with a backslash by a lot of stuff where it's a reserved character, and that caused some problems in the last recovery with pages being uploaded to "example\'s"-type places. - SanityOrMadness 19:52, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

Google

Since it hasn't been noted here yet, Google is currently using this article for the "official" definition at the top of the search result for "authorial intent" instead of Wikipedia's definition. (credit) --abates (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

Considering how useless and circular WP's definition is, I'm not at all surprised. --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2018 (EDT)