Talk:Great Expectations/Archive 3

Article's rating is still C Class
I looked back in the history to see that this article was C Class way back when the translated text was noted on Talk page by in 2013 here. Sections from French Wikipedia were added in December 2015 here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and then in November 2015 here and here and here and on November 23 here, which is when I think the translations from French began that year. In July 2014, translation was added here and here and here and here and in March 2014 here and then jumping over many other translations brought to the article to this one in November 2012 here that may have been the first one. Working a long time on improving this article! As the translations from French were added in bits, we had time to be sure we understood the meaning and the sources, and put things in the style of an English language article. Lots of work was done on the references by, so they are pretty well organized, and they are extensive. I looked at the list of Vital articles here to find Middlemarch rated as B Class, and at least on first glance, I do not see that article as better than this one. I admit I do not generally understand how articles get their ratings, well, specifically, the criteria applied by whoever adds the rating, and how all that work over years has not been noticed yet. Does any of the Great Expectations editors agree with me? When will someone from Novels come around to give the article a B Class rating? --Prairieplant (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * hullo! Looking at the six criteria listed under B class over at WikiProject Novels/Assessment, I think unfortunately, we're not quite there yet with the second one: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Great Expectations, for example, could use a bit of beefing up, considering the amount of scholarship on Great Expectations, no? (This parenthetical's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think desperate students may find more info about that on Sparknotes or Shmoop than in this article!) Luckily, I've started a translation of that same section in my sandbox; unluckily, I've yet to finish it. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm an obvious fan of Great Expectations, but it was written in installments (as common in the period). Amongst women writers, Middlemarch is classed B, Emma is C, Pride and Prejudice is B, Jane Eyre is C, Wuthering Heights is B, Cranford is C, The Nine Tailors is B, Orlando is C, Rebecca is C, Death on the Nile is C, A Severed Head start class, Love in a Cold Climate start class, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie C, The Tailor of Gloucester start class, The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin C, The Hundred and One Dalmatians start class, The Railway Children start class, Mary Poppins start class, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone GA class and Noddy Goes to Toyland stub class. There is no accounting for tastes ... Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I looked at some of these novels. Wuthering Heights is clearly is more a "C" than a "B", and I upgraded Mary Poppins, because it is so obviously no longer "start-class". Rwood128 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * So it is not the article as it is, but a judgment against the number of books and articles written about the book that is the standard. That is a moving target. Thanks for replying,, , . I love the novel, too. I am not impressed in general by Schmoop (I just read the Little Dorrit plot summary there, it was so much slang), but have not read Sparknotes lately on any book. I see this article as better than C class, and my understanding of the novel was so improved when I came upon this article with all the recent improvements. That got me more involved with the story, and understanding so much more of how literary analysis can enlighten, when written in an interesting way. I still think this article is better than the one on Middlemarch, a novel I have read so many times, but I accept the standards. Time to work on the Style section!  —Prairieplant (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * edited my own errors. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

How to archive this talk page?
My second point today, I do not know how to set up automatic archiving. This talk page is littered with very old comments now quite historical. Does anyone know how to do this for a talk page? or or  or anyone who has edited the article --- a long list, I must admit, or who has never edited this page but is skilled in setting up automatic archiving. I think the Talk page was last archived in 2011, if my scanning of the history caught the correct year. Would someone set it up? We have just a few live discussions now, as Talk page subjects are called when I use my mobile phone to read Wikipedia. I think it would be easier to see the truly current topics if old and resolved topics were archived. So I ask for help or someone to do a job I do not know how to do. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * hullo again! I don't know if this talk page gets enough traffic to warrant setting up a bot to archive. That said, it seems simply copying and pasting the code available at Help:Archiving a talk page. Following the instructions on that same help page, I've taken the liberty of archiving manually - since the code mentioned earlier keeps archives below 75 kb, I created a second one (whose title is unfortunately affected by the infobox within). Hopefully, that helps. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you! This page gets more traffic, I mean the article itself, than most of the articles on which I work. Only the history articles get more (The Gilded Age and New France are two I watch). The old discussions seem unread by editors posting new comments. I read all the past comments, and those topics are resolved now. I want the current discussions to keep up with the changes in this changing article. Thank you! I am using my phone for this post, and it shows only the the current open topics. Not sure this signed my post, so —Prairieplant (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Magwitch
Looking at the archives for this talk page - the question should, perhaps, have been put: How could anyone #prove# that Magwitch is Magwitch, even if they know who he is? AL Pluribelle (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * that strikes me as content for the article and not a talk page topic. If some author has written about identifying Magwitch as an unbelievable challenge, and that source is reliable, then let the topic enter the article. Myself, I see no issues with identifying Magwitch in the story, and it is entirely plausible to me, the plot line. But I am just an editor, not a Reliable Source. Do you have journal articles or books covering the topic? --Prairieplant (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Compeyson and Pip may well recognise him as the same person as they knew years before - but what actual official records would there be to prove that he was the same person (and no photographs at the time). AL Pluribelle (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

See Archive 2 [] for earlier examples of this kind of pointless comment. As I noted previously (Archive 2) they always seem to come on a Thursday! Rwood128 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Adaptations
Does anyone think that this list is too long? Also BrightR suggests that every entry requires a citation. I argue that this isn't really necessary when an article exists to prove the noteworthiness of the entry. Rwood128 (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Argue that on WT:V. Until then, it's policy and you can't override it. Bright☀ 03:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you meant to send us to this page here, and not the talk page. I have read that. It wants us to copy the sources from the original article, rather tedious. I agree with when it comes to adaptations of a novel, that existence of a good article on the adaptation is verifiable, and feel that Wikipedia has itself in a circle here. I suppose it will be up to me to copy sources from articles already written, as BrightR has the job of pointing out the error not fixing it.
 * I do not think the list of adaptations is too long; it is a popular work, adapted often and in several media. If the list becomes too long for the article, the list could become its own article. The notion of a "farm" of adaptations is not one that I grasp, when the adaptations are films and stage plays over many decades. It is an indication of continuing interest in a novel written in the 19th century. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There are two books that I found solely about adaptations of Great Expectations. I have citations for all but two of those in the list in the article. Getting tired, finish another day. Newspapers review these adaptations, too. I removed the Example farm flag, and feel justified in so doing by those books. They list more adaptations than are found in this article and compare them, evaluate them. The list here includes the best film version, the play which David Lean saw that led him to think he could make that best film, the first television adaptation and the first UK television adaptation as well as stage versions by prominent theatre companies. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm certain that I read somewhere that Wikipedia rules can be ignored if that makes good sense. The copying of sources from the original article doesn't make much sense, especially when there is so much more important work that needs doing. The existence of the article on an adaptation indicates that it both existed and is noteworthy. Rwood128 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes rules can be ignored, that is true. I think that the list is a short sampling of the adaptations that have been made from this novel, based on the Appendix to one of the books with lists of far more plays. I did not study the film and television list as thoroughly. So I put that in the introductory paragraph to the Adaptation section and added a couple of inline citations, too. I took the 2013 movie out, and put that as a sentence in the listed 2013 stage adaptation, as it is a film of the play. And that 2013 play was a revival of the 1988 stage play, but without the dancing in the 1988 version, and without Alan Cummings in any role at all. He was in the 1988 stage play. Only a few of the films have no inline citation, copied from the article. See how it looks now. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Satis House merger note
I've merged the two per the deletion discussion linked at the top of the talk page but didn't find much text worth keeping. Kept the images and references, paraphrased the Renovation House bit, and deleted information only restating the novel without further commentary. Most of the information about the real Satis House already exists in King's School, Rochester. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Bold for character names
, the characters in this example of a good article, called exemplary and a featured article about fiction, has the names in bold, or as subsection titles, which puts the names like bold, The General in His Labyrinth. It is an example in this article Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. I do not see the page on boldface type as rigid guidance for articles on novels. If you look at articles about fiction, there are variations in the topics covered, whether there is a list of characters, so as to describe the novel and the critical evaluation of it in the clearest way, among the articles receiving highest ratings. I suggest restoring the bold names, and letting that be a guide for the articles about novels by Dickens. The author Charles Dickens is known for the number of characters in his novels and their particular descriptions. - -Prairieplant (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This violates MOS:NOBOLD, specifically "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." The General in His Labyrinth is a red herring: the style guideline doesn't apply to subsection titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have just checked several novel articles–this is common policy (these are subheadings). Rwood128 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * So we make each character a subsection, following the example of the article on The General in His Labyrinth, okay? --Prairieplant (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No, leave things as they were (revert to bold)–see War and Peace for an alternative system. But as the use of bold is very common why change things? Rwood128 (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Two out three support bold for the character names, so we revert to that. Okay. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE This is not up for debate. It is MOS. The may well be lots of pages where you find it, but they are also wrong. Instead of arguing for this, change the other ones that are wrong. Second point, you have not given d enough time for comment. You now need to get a third opinion via dispute resolution as this is against MOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is getting tedious–this may not be strictly correct by the rule book, but why waste editing time changing, when the result is eqiuivalent to a subheading (example below)? There are, surely, more important editing matters that need fixing.

Philip Pirrip
Rwood128 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is enough material to do that for each character, then yes, use a subheading.


 * "Bold or header" was not a choice they made, it was "this character is a massive paragraph or two, so a subhead is more appropriate than the usual method"


 * If you can find any of the MOSs (for example the "literature/books MOS") that say "it's OK to use bold like that", then fine.


 * Otherwise, we keep the articles in a similar style, and using bold like that is NOT a fashiion choice.


 * Don;t keep blaming me, blame the MOS - feel free to try and get everyone to agree to changing the MOS to how you want it. Once you have got it changed, then I will enforce it the way you describe.


 * Until then, it is against MOS, and making the character names headers might also get changed. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention the other method :) Bullet point each character. That is probably a better first option than headers.


 * I have no issue with bullet pointing them, as they are really in list format, rather than prose format.


 * See MOS:BULLET


 * Thanks for signing my comment ;¬) ... something is awry with my firefox and the m. version editor Chaosdruid (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The reality is, Chaosdruid, that if you look at novel articles that have a list of characters you will find that bold is usually used. If this is a real problem go ahead and fix all these articles. There is no point in continuing this discussion. Rwood128 (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Re your recent edit, Chaosdruid, you are proposing a major change to what has been practiced on Wikipedia, presumably for many years. Let common sense not any rule book apply here. What is the point of changing from bold to ==== ====, which is also bold? If this is so important to you Chaosdruid, please start making the changes to all the articles where the rule has been ignored. Rwood128 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is NOT a major change, it is putting something right.
 * I offered you the solution, bullet pointing the list, or to allow me to remove the boldening as per MOS:BOLDFACE which you keep reverting due to your personal preference of "what looks good"
 * Once again, we cannot let things slide like that, that is why we have the MOSs.


 * Even if 20 people though it looks good, it is still against MOS. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chaosdruid. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid justification, and it certainly doesn't take precedence over the MOS. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It will be quite a task,(Clarity, Chaosdruid, fixing all these "errors"; best of luck (have you surveyed the examples?). Anyhow this is the wrong place to be discussing this. Isn't there some overriding rule about ignoring rules–I'll check that out later. Rwood128 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". The suggestion does neither, Clarity, Chaosdruid, it is purely bureaucratic. Rwood128 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the above is a little argumentative and sarcastic; I appreciate the high standards of Wikipedia, and that bureaucracy is needed at times. Rwood128 (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw this on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I was initially torn on this but came to a conclusion after looking into it in more detail.

On one hand: While I am generally opposed to overregulation in Wikipedia, I remember when the MOS was first introduced, and it was an important step forward. We should apply it unless there is a very good reason not to. Ignore all rules is policy (I am glad that's still true – there have always been attempts to demote it), but it is not intended for minor style issues like this one. It is for ignoring rules when doing so is necessary. But "It looks better" doesn't create a necessity. Neither does Other stuff exists. The existence of non-compliant pages is never a valid argument for ignoring a rule so long as they are not actually the majority of pages where the same question arises in a similar context. And even then, it's a reason to change the rule, not to ignore it.

On the other hand: The bolding looks pretty good, and I personally feel that removing it would not be an improvement. I believe that is because it has been used correctly, in a way that does not actually contradict MOS:NOBOLD and in fact interpolates positive examples that can be found in the MOS itself. By this I mean that we are not dealing with entries like the following:


 * Pip's brother-in-law Joe Gargery is his first father figure. He is a blacksmith who is always kind to Pip and the only person with whom Pip is always honest. Joe is disappointed when Pip decides to leave his home to live in London to become a gentleman rather than be a blacksmith in business with Joe. He is a strong man who bears the shortcomings of those closest to him.

But only with entries like the following:


 * Joe Gargery, Pip's brother-in-law, and his first father figure. He is a blacksmith who is always kind to Pip and the only person with whom Pip is always honest. Joe is disappointed when Pip decides to leave his home to live in London to become a gentleman rather than be a blacksmith in business with Joe. He is a strong man who bears the shortcomings of those closest to him.

In other words, we are dealing with understated section headings that double as the beginnings of sentences. The MOS is not explicit about this kind of thing. Neither does it say in MOS:LISTBULLET whether list items may start in bold, nor does MOS:NOBOLD directly apply in this situation. It tells us not to use bold text at all in article text. But this is not article text. We are dealing with hybrids of list items and text paragraphs that begin with something that can (not: must) be understood as section headings. It also tells us to use italics instead for introducing new terms. In most cases these character descriptions do introduce new terms, but that is not why the characters have been bolded. It would be silly to exclude a character from the bolding because it has mentioned before. They are being bolded because that's the natural thing to do for section headings.

Would the authors/maintainers of the MOS disagree? Probably not, because they themselves have done pretty much the same thing under the last item of MOS:LISTBULLET. This is a relatively recent introduction (the list used to use italics), may or may not have been noticed, but apparently has so far not been contentious. Moreover, the character lists have pretty much the same function as a glossary. And in glossaries, the definition (which, like here, is essentially a low key section heading for a tiny one-paragraph section) is automatically bolded by the system, as MOS:BOLD itself reminds us.

Based on this, I think this can go either way because we are actually in one of the countless situations that are not definitively decided by the MOS. Here is what I think we should achieve, in order of desirability:


 * 1) Get a consensus over at WT:MOS that list items consisting of paragraphs and starting with terms that may be interpreted as section headings (even if these actually start sentences) may be bolded if done consistently throughout the list. This could also end the other way round, in which contradictory practice in the MOS itslef, this page and the OTHERSTUFF pages mentioned above should be adapted. This may involve workarounds such as converting to glossary format, although that seems less appropriate to me. Either way, a clarification in one of the two obvious places may or may not result.
 * 2) Failing that, get a consensus over there that the MOS does not currently give clear guidance, so that it is up to local decisions.
 * 3) Failing that, realise that this isn't actually all that important. Leave the status quo until 1 or at least 2 can be achieved.

What could also help is input from featured article reviewers who are familiar with literature articles. I could not immediately find any featured article on a novel that has a list of characters. This almost suggests that such lists are not particularly welcome, but then of course Dickens novels are a bit special in that respect. Hans Adler 14:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have still not found a list of characters in a featured article, but when Roger Davies prepared the Hamlet article for FA review in late 2007, he moved the list of characters to a subarticle Characters in Hamlet. This list looks pretty much like the one we have here (except the characters are all notable and therefore linked), and the formatting, despite being only one step away from an key FA, seems to have been stable for over 11 years. Hans Adler 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem Hans, it has been creeping in and so now we have to confront it - either people stop using it, or it gets added to the MOS


 * I cannot really see any other choice than to leave it and so it will continue getting worse. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for these thoughtful and informed comments.


 * Actually I prefer the indented system, but do not see the point in changing this article, and all the others that use bold in this way, especially as visually it gives the same result as a subheading (==== ====). As far as I can see all the articles on Dickens' novels use bold, and there are numerous other examples for other writers. A quick survey of novels by Walter Scott gives examples where indentation is used and bold for major characters. The final point is, is there any editor who is willing to correct all these "errors"? Surely that would be a foolish waste of time. Rwood128 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , the article on The General in His Labyrinth is rated Featured Article on its Talk Page. That article on a complete novel is mentioned at Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Articles on novels have varied formats, including the articles that get Good Article or Featured Article status. I appreciate your view on this topic of bold for character names in a character list, which considers more aspects of the topic. Not listing characters in a novel by Charles Dickens would be a strange choice, as his characters are a main feature of his writing style,as the rest of the article makes clear. The Manual of Style leaves a lot to the choices of the editors; I cannot see what was written about use of Bold as saying anything clear and precise about names in a character in an article about a novel by Charles Dickens. I grasp that sees it that way, but also that any other view point is unimportant to that editor.


 * I went through most of the articles listed under Featured_articles. A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens is one them, and there is a section on Characters. Characters in general are listed and described when the characters are important. Rules of writing an article on a book are often broken in those featured articles, including Night (book) by Elie Wiesel, where the synopsis far exceeds recommended length rules. Pattern Recognition (novel) is another with a list of characters, and the character names are in bold type. Uncle Tom's Cabin has a Major characters section, with bold (or subsection with 3 or 4 equal signs) for each name. I learned that the criteria for a Featured Article appear rather varied, not rigid, and I think I understand why not many editors seek thee Featured Article status. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The visual effect of subsection title format and two other ways to put a character name in bold type

Joe Gargery

 * Joe Gargery
 * Joe Gargery
 * The last three look the same to me, and the first two appear in the Table of Contents. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much more time I have for this discussion, but I really want to say one thing: Wikipedia doesn't have a shortage of editors who are prepared to make tedious little formatting updates to countless articles. Some editors do nothing else all day and have special tools to speed up the process in certain common cases. It only gets tricky when slight rewrites are necessary, as would be the case, e.g., for converting pseudo-headlines that start sentences into inlined headlines that are each followed by a dash and a complete sentence or sentences. This kind of thing is easily messed up when you jump from article to article and arent't relly interested in the content.

The format- and consistency-oriented editors are an important part of Wikipedia's ecosystem, but they also tend to get into much the same kind of conflicts with content-focused editors that are known from the relations between nomads and the sedentary population around the world. It is important for both groups to develop strategies to get along with each other. It can be stressful, but ideally, what first looks like a conflict turns into a win-win situation. For content editors this means understanding the positions of format-oriented editors and knowing where to ask for help with tedious work the don't necessarily want to do on their own. By the way, there is nothing better for good relations than having asked someone a favour once and then thanked them for doing it. Hans Adler 14:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed. I appreciate this helpful comment. Rwood128 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Chaosdruid perhaps matters can be resolved. As stated above I prefer the use of indentations, rather than bold, but on the other hand as bold is regularly used in the articles on Dickens's novels, I was objecting to the inconsistency that would result if just this one article was changed (especially as bold is also used in articles on many other authors). It looks like I might have misunderstood your intentions; I should have clarified this with you earlier. That is do you plan, eventually, to fix at least all the articles on Dickens's novels? I am sure other editors (including me) would be happy to assist you. Rwood128 (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be wise to first sounds things out with the other Dickens article content editors. I now realise that I stupidly created the impression that they are likely not to mind if 'their' articles are refomatted. (See WP:OWN for how it should be, but of course this is hard to follow once you have invested a lot of work.) But it could very well be that some feel rather strongly about this. Hans Adler 19:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been away for a few days & will be catching up this evening.
 * I was primarily a copyeditor, up to FA level, and am grateful that there are now more MOSs than just the original one.
 * I mainly edited content, vast amounts of content. There were some formatting changes, to bring articles in line with MOS, but 99% was content. [line added after cut & paste error]
 * I think it is time for people to look at this as a whole and decide if there is a need for a MOS change.


 * Rather than have this methood of boldening using headers, we should ratify a rule that we can follow.
 * For now, until I read everything, I would be happy with sub-headers indents until one of the MOSs is changed.


 * As for discussions, I think it might be appropriate to try and get the Literature or Novels MOS changed?
 * Manual_of_Style/Novels
 * Currently, it suggests not making character lists, but introducing them "in the plot".
 * It could be that discussing these changes with them might get more traction? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That is not a useful direction. I suggest following the guidance from editor Hans Adler. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it could be tricky to get formatting advice for a generally discouraged thing into MOS:NOVELS. But I suppose it's worth a try. At the very least, the attempt could lead to a representative list of articles on novels that have character lists. Hans Adler 07:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Chaosdruid's comment above re Manual_of_Style/Novels is a little misleading; this is what is actually said:
 * Characters
 * If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader. Rwood128 (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . That is a useful guide for reviewing the character descriptions. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Misleading? I gave a link to the whole MOS.


 * I was pointing that out for you all to go talk to them about how they suggest a list, vut don;t tell how to use emphasis - something you can talk to them about.


 * Boldface like that is against MOS, both the Wiki MOS and the specific novels MOS


 * It should go, as it should on the other articles.


 * SO trhe real question is, when I have time, shall I go ahead and do the cleaning up, or are you editors, who are already invested, going to clean it up yourselves? Chaosdruid (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

that is one perverse conclusion, opposite to all the discussion here, and by the numbers, you are the only one who finds bold names in a character list to be the top problem in articles about novels. Hans Adler has laid out a more sensible plan, of taking your discussion to the people who write the MOS, on Bullet points, on bold text and on articles about novels, to gain agreement on major changes before you or anyone acts. You gained no agreement in the discussion here, on this plan to alter articles to suit your taste.
 * I completely OPPOSE your proposed plan. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Too much bold should be avoided, but it would be best to first clarify this on Manual_of_Style/Novels. To my eye Pickwick Papers is the ideal. Subsequently articles could be changed slowly over time–with no pressure on any one editor. Rwood128 (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have made the following proposal, in attempt to resolve this matter: Manual of Style/Novels. Rwood128 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Tautology ?
Does any Editor share my view that the phrase "a bildungsroman that depicts the personal growth and personal development of an orphan nicknamed Pip" is tautologous, given that link to the associated definition of 'bildungsroman' ?124.171.109.158 (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The doubling up in "personal growth and personal development" makes it egregious. William Avery (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Be Bold exists, you know. ;) Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Admirably pithily edited, thank you. Cheerio.124.171.109.158 (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is usually beneficial to define bildungsroman, as the term is from German. Yes the wiki link is there, but understanding the article should not rely on the reader delving into the wiki links. Edit the sentence if you like, but remember why the sentence is there in the first place. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS caveat in place, I'd like to point to To Kill a Mockingbird shortly after promotion to featured article. Its lede stated,, so no explicit definition. That comes later in Genres section: Just food for thought.
 * Also, I figure I'd take this opportunity to ask if anyone could help translate a sentence or two of the French article into the English. It's just the Styles section left, and I've started (a very rough translation) over here in my sandbox. Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I will look, at the translation. I glanced at it just now and see it is a topic that was challenging in the David Copperfield article. So I need full focus, which I have later today or tomorrow. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

« Une faiblesse du roman » ? (Sylvère Monod)
I deleted the English version as it didn't make much sense: it lacked a clear subject (other than being about characters!) and therefore focus. A look at the original suggests that the problem is there, but my French is v. poor. I believe that there is a similar problem with "Le point paroxystique de l'être" – "The climactic point of being".

Sorry about these deletion, Rotideypoc41352. I struggled at times when translating David Copperfield with what I suspected was poor writing in the French article, but because I have very little French couldn't be totally sure. Rwood128 (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Diffs: my translation, « Une faiblesse du roman » ? (Sylvère Monod) removal, and "The climactic point of being" removal
 * That's fine. Better no translation than a headscratcher. I'm inclined to be more charitable; we know, and the French encyclopaedic style with its long, complex syntax does not help us. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rotideypoc41352, I hate being negative like this!


 * I think that the problem is more than syntax – more some French editors inability to express themselves in a coherent, organized way. I found working on Copperfield both v.interesting and exhausting, because of similar difficulties.
 * I wonder what Prairieplant and Robert Ferrieux think about this? Rwood128 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One of the sections you removed for better translation was referring to Dickens and his macabre imagination to create Miss Havisham and Dickens' fantastic imagination (as in fantasy, not a generic compliment) to create Wemmick and his castle at home. The deleted paragraph was this one: Monod writes that eccentricity is often "abusive", except Magwitch's and Orlick's, easily excused by their ignorance, and Jagger's extreme case of professional deformation that criticized the macabre imagination that spawned Miss Havisham and the boundless fantasies of Wemmick's castle.
 * In better English, I think it makes sense to comment on the extremes of the author's imagination in creating his characters, from the happy, whimsical side of Wemmick to the dark life of Miss Havisham, stuck in the past, driven by a broad revenge on men, and who was killed by a fire in her unkempt home. This is part of how the novel fits so many genres, the extremes of the characters. I cannot figure where the phrase "professional deformation" arose. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

French article link
I cannot find any acknowledgement of the French article from which material has been translated. Rwood128 (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Template enbiggened. No idea why it defaults to . Prairieplant also provided a more thorough attribution back in May 2018. While we're at it, I made a comment back when I placed the template in 2013 (!). Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)