Talk:Jane Austen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
 To-do list for Jane Austen: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
Contents |
 Archives |
|
[edit] Subpages
[edit] Sub-section heading
Both Section 1 and subsection 1.4 are labeled life. Shouldn't the latter be changed to "Adulthood" or something similar ? Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lady Susan
Is it generally regarded as 'unfinished'? It is not unfinished in the same way that 'Sanditon' and 'The Watsons' are. It is a complete story - though a short one.Sterry2607 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Austen action figure image
I consulted someone more familiar with the image guidelines than myself just to check to see if I was right regarding the Jane Austen action figure image not being in the public domain. Here are the comments I received (copied from my talkpage):
- You're correct; the image constitutes a derivative work and, as such. the uploader does not have rights thereto. Commons guidelines explicitly identify action figures as unacceptable. Additionally, Step 1 of the Commons upload template lists commercial packaging as "not allowed" (which is, however, poorly enforced; this, for example, was unidentified as a "quality image", basically a Commons GA). The Jane Austen action figure image would only be in the public domain if the creator of the figure/packaging has released it as such. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am therefore removing the image from the article again. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay...but you should have gone about it this way from the beginning. I wish there were someway that the picture could stay (some different kind of copyright mark or something) because I think it adds value to the article, but you obviously don't like the picture and are unwilling to look for other alternatives, and since it appears you are the unofficial administrator of this article, I'm confronting a bit of a wall. --Eustress (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Butting in here, but I fail to see the cultural significance of this image, copyright issue or no. It's is an action figure of Jane Austen. They're for sale in my uni's bookstore along with ones of Sigmund Freud and Shakespeare; it's a joke. Were there some kind of significance tied to the figure other than its connection to dorm room culture, I would see no problem with adding it under a fair use rationale. What's next, Austen chewing gum? I'm sure it's out there somewhere. María (habla conmigo) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's not that I don't like it (it's a great illustration of the Janeite concept, I think). The image violates Wikipedia's copyright policy. What more is there to say about it? If you want to find other images that we can use under the copyright policy, I have no problem with that. In fact, it would be a big help if you were to look for images for the article. Simmaren and I have been working on the text. If you could work on looking for images. that would be wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Eustress, why not just ask the copyright holder to release an image of the packaging? If you haven't already tried this, apparently there is a 50%-70% success rate. The steps are outlined in Wikipedia's requesting copyright permission article. Basically you use a commons process whereby you will eventually submit an email trail (with the rights holder) via OTRS to support your upload. It isn't difficult and it worked smoothly for me on a couple of biographies very recently. BTW though I see what María/Yllosubmarine means, I think it is important to capture ephemera like this while you can. Popular interest in Jane Austen (beyond uni bookstore/doom room culture) is probably cyclical, and this figure is probably some sort of high-water mark (until "chawton gum" hits the streets). Better to ask for a release now while it is still easy to reach the rights holder. - Pointillist (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Don't get me wrong, I think these "action figures" are hilarious. The Freud one especially. I just don't believe an image of a joke Austen doll (with writing desk!) is a true barometer of her lasting legacy in today's pop culture. Screencaps of recent semi-biographical films would be more encyclopedic. Still, if an OTRS permission were obtained for the image, I wouldn't fight over its inclusion. It would merely depress me and my purist sensibilities. María (habla conmigo) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The action-figure image could more legitimately be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, than to Commons. Churchh (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- My goal in including the action figure was just a simple and singular illustration of Austen in pop culture—not a barometer by any means. I'm surprised that more isn't said about Austen's modern-day appeal in this article. Heck—a movie about Austen (Becoming Jane) even came out recently in several countries. --Eustress (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- This article is supposed to discuss Jane Austen, her works, and her reception - a very tall order. As you will notice, nothing is said about her works yet. That is the single biggest omission in the article. Simmaren and I have been working on a "Style and themes" section here. I hope to get back to it in May. Detailed information on modern-day reception can be found in Reception history of Jane Austen and, as I said, I hope to read more on film, TV, and novel adaptations and add more to the "Adaptations" section in that article. If you could help out with that, I would be ever so grateful. I have a good list of books, if you would need any help with sources. Jane Austen in popular culture and Janeite also have information on modern fan culture and adaptations. These subarticles have to be split off when there is too much information to include in the main article but they are all summarized in the main article. We have to keep in mind that we are trying to summarize 200 years of reception - it is very difficult to keep those 200 years in perspective. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I had no idea there was an entire article dedicated to Jane Austen in popular culture—probably because it's hidden under See also. It would be nice to integrate that link somewhere into the article, but like you said, there's a lot to cover about Jane Austen. I would be bold and work on the integration myself, but I think you ladies have a good idea of what the article should look like (and probably a better understanding of Jane Austen in general), so I'll work on fixing the picture and inserting it into the pop culture article (a better fit) and will continue to lend a hand here where possible. Best --Eustress (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I have read a few Jane Austen books, and I'm not sure how many other guys can say that :)
- Link added at the top of the "Reception" section. If you want help with the image, ask Elcobbola. She knows the image rules backwards and forwards. She can help you figure out how to write to the company, etc. I really think Janeite is the place for that image. We need a good image there. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] On film and book adaptions
There is a subsection at Reception history of Jane Austen#Adaptations on Jane Austen adaptations. Now, this section is in development and I was planning on reading Jane Austen in Hollywood and Jane Austen on Screen before importing a summary here. However, I think it is better to have a well-sourced summary regarding the film and book adaptations. I will write one later today. We can rewrite the summary when the full section has been written. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
I am requesting semi-protection for this article. All but two of the edits in the last fifty edits are clearly vandalism (or reversion of vandalism) by unregistered users. There have been few if any recent positive contributions by unregistered editors. The supply of vandals seems unlimited. Twenty-eight of the last 50 edits (56%) are vandalism by unregistered users. Therefore, according to the criteria at WP:Rough, this page clearly qualifies for semi-protection. Simmaren (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Then again, good faith edits on this article are also usually removed or reverted. I would suggest, for instance, changing the title of the minor work to "Love and Friendship" (in line with Christine Alexander's observation about deliberate 'juvenilising' of this text, and in view of the fact that it's spelled this way in the new Cambridge edition edited by Peter Sabor) but I see little point given that it's been altered before, and switched back. In fact, maybe the page should just be locked and be done with it. Sills bend (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- In my experience, previous changes from "Freindship" (the title given the work in Austen's manuscript) to "Friendship" were made without prior discussion in what appeared to be mindless efforts to "correct" what seemed to be a typographical error. The spelling of "Friendship" versus "Freindship" is open to discussion, right here. There is a legitimate debate waiting to happen on this point, but it hasn't happened yet. Please feel free to make your case. And before giving up in disgust, take a look at Archive 3 for examples of how good faith discussion resolved two similar issues to everyone's satisfaction. Simmaren (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The archived talk page you directed me to was not reassuring, actually. Sills bend (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- We are very thorough and reliable editors, actually. If you would like to see examples of the work I have produced, please see my userpage. And despite what may look like a difficult dispute, you might look at what User:Pointillist says about the experience you read. Both Simmaren and I are dedicated to making the encyclopedia a better place, with reliable articles. I hope that reassures you to some degree. Awadewit (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi Sills bend. Not sure how well that archived thread presents the to-and-fro, but in my experience the Jane Austen Talk page is a great place to have serious discussion, and if Simmaren says there's a legitimate debate to have about "Freindship" then the door is wide open. Be careful if you win, though: my prize was the opportunity to write a Death of Jane Austen article for them. - Pointillist (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Family
I wanted to include more details of her brothers, in the family section. Clearly her family was extremely important to her so it seemed appropriate. The source material I was using was based on her nephew's memoir, including their professions, the year of their birth and death. (This also indicates that her brothers were also high achievers, but I wasn't going to say that explicitly.) I was going to add the James Edward Austen-Leigh memoir in the reference section as well as it is not there currently listed and is my source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchick (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are absolutely correct that Austen's family was very important to her. However, this page is already long and missing a very important section - on her novels! (We are slowly working on that - could you help?) What do you think about adding details on her family to a page we have been working on regarding her family? (see User:Simmaren/Sandbox/Draft Jane Austen's Family) We hope to make this into an article about Austen's family eventually. Also, please note the memoir is already used as a source for this article. Awadewit (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that her novels really do deserve at least a section. I can help with the 5 major novels. But I don't know her lesser known writing very well. 12 June 2008 PDT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchick (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
