Talk:Beatrice Baudelaire

Cleanup
This article needs some cleanup. Someone put a lot of information in this article which seems merely copied and pasted and disorganized. I don't have time to fix it all right now (although if I did, I'm not sure exactly how I would clean it up as I personally am not very good at formatting things for articles). Shivers  talk  17:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As it stands, I feel that a complete reboot and then perhaps organising evidence by book, talked through coherently rather than listing random misquotations, would be the most appropriate cleanup here. For such a vital part of the series, then the Beatrice page is truly atrocious.

Right, I've been brave and gotten rid of all of everything below the dedications - it's nearly all summarised in a much more encyclopedic fashion in the opening few paragraphs, so there was no need for it, quite apart from the fact that it was all poorly-written and had a fair bit of original research (a problem that frankly plagues every aSoUE article).

I am the one who posted all of the as you put it "misquotations" from the sereis about Beatrice none of the quotes were "misquoted." and were only fairly "disorganized" it was in book by book order and was in no way "Randon." None of it was "original research" it was all from the books themselves. Beatrice is my largest obsesstion and is a very "vital part of the series."
 * I apologise, I mistook your edit for a straight re-insert of some information that had earlier been removed. Nevertheless, I don't feel that there is anything to be gained by quoting Snicket every time he mentions Beatrice.  It was too extensive, I feel, to get past [|WP: Fair Use].  And frankly, the notable instances that were inserted as quotations are present already in the main body of the article; I do not believe there's anything to be gained by adding them.  Nevertheless, I thank you for explaining your view, and I concede that the layout, placement, and format is something that could have easily been edited; however, I would appreciate it if you did not repost the text - the purpose it serves I belive would be better done on a fansite, such as your home UE.com.

you are most likely right.

More info
I just borowed a copy of the beatrice letters from a friend, and I don't know how many of you read it, but there's a lot of info that needs to be added. We should add a lot more stuff to this.

I just read the book this week, and i cant believe there are two Beatrices!, maybe the mother and the daugther, a daugther kidnapped by a secret organization, so the Baudelaires siblings never realize of her existence. But this is just a theory.

I'm sorry to debate your theory, but the other beatrice is THE BABY BEATRICE NAMED IN CHAPTER FOURTEEN, she was adopted by the orphans. She wasn't kidnapped. She was adopted. THIS COMMENT MAY BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF STUPID AND CONFUSING THEORY.

- Wikipedia Cleanup - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.133.235 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler problem
The end of The Beatrice Letters does indeed suggest that there are two Beatrice Baudelaires. But the mention of her surname, or the fact that there are two, should not be at the very start of the article, since it's a major spoiler for anyone still reading books 1-12. Can't it just say "Beatrice is a character mentioned in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"? --203.206.80.233 04:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it, especially since the question of her identity is still not resolved. (Could we even say that there are two Beatrices *in* A Series of Unfortunate Events? The narrator only seems to be aware of the elder, so perhaps the younger only features in The Beatrice Letters.) Go ahead and add more details after the spoiler warning, but for the first couple of sentences I think it's best to leave the nature of Beatrice as a mystery. (Think about it: an article about Bruce Willis' character from The Sixth Sense wouldn't begin by giving away the key secret of the film.) --203.206.80.233 13:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Major/minor Character
Whether Beatrice is a major or minor character, she needs to be included in the template? placed after elements that are in the book. Instead one has to find a link internally in the text. Suggestions? Rochelle CMN 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Beatrice is a Minor Character, because she isn't the survivor of the fire, neither appears in other books of a series of unfortunate events. Just in book the first. 'Cause the Survivor parent is Bertrand. Thanks.

- The Ultimate Wikipedia Helper - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.133.235 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

More spoiler problems
The fact that Beatrice was the mother of the Baudelaire orphans is a major spoiler for the series, and although it did appear below the spoiler heading, placing this information in the title of the first subsection made it impossible to miss. No one could look at the article without seeing "Baudelaire's Mother" in large letters in the middle of the page. I have taken the liberty of changing the title "Baudelaire's Mother" to "The First Beatrice" and "Kit Snicket's Daughter" to "The Second Beatrice". This is still a spoiler for "The Beatrice Letters", but I don't see a good way to avoid this. CKarnstein 23:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your solution. There's no other way to divide them and as they are seperate people, they do need to be seperated. 21:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming the article Beatrice Baudelaire is a bit of an issue. A spoiler in itself. Is there any proposed solution to this? ~Fidec Lure 13:01, 1/30/07

This is all wrong. You shouldn't change the title like this. Her name is not Baudelaire's Mother or The First Beatrice or Kit Snicket's Daugher. Her name is Beatrice Baudelaire. You could make a note saying that it is the Mom or the first Beatrice. Because the second Beatrice is the baby Beatrice that is 10 years old in Chapter FOurteen that is found in book 13 at final of a series of unfortunate events.

- The Ultimate WIkipedia helper - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.133.235 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup
Given that the series is now over, I believe this article should be more streamlined without all the speculation and guesses.--CyberGhostface 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Series are NEVER OVER. You can read 'em again and again. and new people read about each day. If you meant that Daniel Handler under Lemony Snicket's Pen Name Finished writing books for a series of unfortunate events, your right. THere are NO SPECULATION OR GUESSES. Is the thruth. In the book, in oficial articles. in every thing about it.

- Wikipedia Cleanup - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.133.235 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Seperate
Shouldn't there be seperate articles on Bertrand, BB1 and BB2? Information about BB1 is scattered between Mr. and Mrs. Baudelaire and this page. Pacaman! 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The two Beatrices are completely different people and habour no link between each other apart from the fact that one is the namesake and foster-grandmother of the other.Danny 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words
I noticed some weasel words in the Trivia section, ...it is thought by many..., that should probably be deleted. Also, do we really need a trivia section so small? Either we could expand it, or delete it and merge the information in the main body of the article. --Orthologist 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dedications
Since most (if not all; I only mention the possibility as someone's bound to argue) of the dedications are made to the older Beatrice, why have they been merged into the article for the younger Beatrice? (Note: If the current trend of these messages never being addressed follows, I may move the whole thing over myself.) 217.42.64.91 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for merging the dedications. Microchip08 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he just fixed them. They're still not on the older Beatrice's page. 217.44.115.84 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't
Baetrice (the younger one)'s name be Beatrice Denouement?Elfin341 07:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if Kit and Dewey got married, and there's no evidence for them having done so or not, but Kit still calls herself Snicket. (Some people even think that the baby is Olaf's, although I think that's unlikely, they clearly broke up a very long time ago.)  Because the Baudelaires have effectively adopted the baby - she's part of the family - then the Baudelaire surname is accurate, although I think that was partly to be more confusing in The Beatrice Letters.217.44.115.84 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The parents don't have to be married for the child to have the father's last name (most illegitimate children are give the father's name). Nor does Kit Snicket keeping her own name mean they're not married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.203.56 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, there is no indication that Kit and Dewey were ever married. Likewise, Snicket clearly states that BB2's last name is "Baudelaire", and in the Beatrice letters BB2 refers to the Baudelaires as her family. — the Man in Question (in question)  20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatricesnicket.jpg
Image:Beatricesnicket.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)