Talk:The Gates Ajar

Proposed merge with Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward
The stub article about the book is unlikely to grow much given the historical context, and the article about the author already contains some info on the book, essentially duplicating what's in the book article. The author article is short enough that both would benefit from merging. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Both the author article and book article could be substantially expanded.  The book article should cover the entire Gates series (with plot summaries, critical reception sections, etc.).   The Gates Ajar was incredibly popular in its day, far more popular than most books that "merit" individual articles on Wikipedia.  Also the article on Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward merits expansion.--Milowent • hasspoken  10:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Though I see your point that, at this stage, a merge would benefit both articles, I think that two separate articles are warranted and, with time, can be expanded significantly. Remember, there's no deadline. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather think the deadline rationale supports allowing separate articles to grow, instead of combining them. I'm also thinking of how many of her other books could merit individual articles.  I created a stub for the 1896 bestseller A Singular Life awhile back, realizing it could also be greatly expanded.  As a post 1894-book, that one's "chart success" is documented by Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1890s.  I realize there weren't the same sort of bestseller statistics being created in the 1860s and 1870s, but it is only one of three books from that year that James David Hart included in The Popular Book, with a whole chapter titled "The Gates Ajar" as an allusion to this novel.  No way does The Moonstone deserve more ink than the Gates Ajar!--Milowent • hasspoken  17:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to cut in but I wanted to be clear: I was indeed saying that I prefer two separate articles and was not arguing for a merge. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly familiar with the literary merits of The Gates Ajar. It's not whether The Moonstone or The Gates Ajar is more notable, but whether the information for an article is currently available. While the article on the book may eventually receive enough attention to make it a stand-alone work, I don't see it in the near future. If you could offer a bare outline of what information might be added at some point, it might help clarify the merits of either merging the articles or keeping them separate. As it stands right now, fully 50% of the book article reprises what is in the main article. Here is the info that is substantially not currently found in the author article:


 * Much of the plot features discussions between Mary and Winifred Forceythe, her widowed aunt from Kansas. The novel represents heaven as being similar to that of Earth (but better). In contrast with traditions of Calvinism, Phelps's version of heaven is corporeal where the dead have "spiritual bodies", live in houses, raise families, and participate in various activities.
 * In 1877, The New York Times noted that "there are persons to whom The Gates Ajar is a standard to which they refer books they admire intensely, and there are others who use the same volume as a measure of their contempt for trashy, overstrained 'feminine' literature."
 * Mark Twain later stated that his short story Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven was a satire of The Gates Ajar.


 * So I think a merger is appropriate for now and when enough stand-alone info on the book has been added to the author article, it could be split off. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, let me try a different way - the Gates Ajar was the Gangham Style of 1868-69. It merits a separate article, just because you copied content from this article into the Phelps article doesn't change that.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge The New York Times article and others talk about it proving it is notable.  A merge would be the same as a delete, none of the book information would fit in the author's article, you'd just replace the article with a "redirect" and nothing really merged.  You can't have a paragraph for every single bestselling book of hers in her article, it just not all fitting.  "It was the second best selling book of the 18th century in the United States".  This book is notable enough to have its own article clearly.   D r e a m Focus  09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, I vote we remove the merge tag. The good news is that the original editor who proposed it inspired some additions to the article in question, which is definitely a good thing. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said and thanks for all the input! I'll do some editing to try to refine the distinctions between the two articles. Any help you can offer is much appreciated! — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Name of Elizabeth Stuart Phelps
Her name was "Phelps" at the time of writing and publishing The Gates Ajar. I don't understand why the first paragraph uses a married name from a couple decades later.

It is confusing when later paragraphs use "Phelps." Maineshepp (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Maineshepp (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I started this article back when it was a stub and don't really recall for sure why I used that. I think I was aware that her mother (also Elizabeth Stuart Phelps, 1815-1852) was also an author.  During the time period she wrote, female authors had to deal with many formulations of their name being used based on their marital status.  What if we put "(Ward)" in parenthesis?--Milowent • hasspoken  17:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So glad you started this article. I think a cross-reference to Ward would be fine. Maybe only needed once, as those interested would hopefully follow the link to her bio page. As you may notice, I am trying to work on the popular culture side, too. fascinating. Trying to be sensitive to parallels in terminology that may not come directly from this book. But there were zero songs with "gates ajar" prior to her book! I will add more Jessie Curtis illustrations, now that I bought the illustrated edition. Maineshepp (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Added an infobox. Hope you think that helps. As the artist is named there, I didn't think I needed to repeat on each illustration. That's about all the material I have at present. A piece of music came in today's mail. Yes, the top is cut off--but it was cheap! Maybe someone can replace it someday! Maineshepp (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The fix to the name looks good. Great work on the article -- the flower arrangements! -- truly fascinating stuff in here.  The songs as well.  That was a common way to leverage popularity, even a brief fad like Hot Corn in 1854 (something I recently dug into) generated multiple songs.  I'm sure many songwriters were eager to make money without paying royalties on the Gates Ajar!--Milowent • hasspoken  19:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Gates Ajar as allegory
I added a brief section on Gates Ajar as allegory. Might be important. Wonder if others have written on this. If we keep this section, does it belong where I put it? Maineshepp (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Dates 1869 - 1868
The date of publication on the coverpage says 1869 whereas the article mentions 1868. Wondering what the correct date is. Lotje (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)