Talk:The Mayor of Casterbridge

message: I reverted this edit, as it came directly from Studyworld Studynotes. I also think it wasn't quite right placed inside a section about the characters. Stratford490 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extract copied from Studyworld Studynotes 

message: I think it's a pity that Casterbridge redirects here. It also appears in Tess of the d'Urbervilles, and very possibly other Hardy novels. Tess also includes a passing mention of the conjurer whom Henchard visits in The Mayor to ask about rainfall; perhaps an article on Hardy's fictional England would be good. 86.131.89.90 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the target of Casterbridge to Thomas Hardy's Wessex. --Mathew5000 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Casterbridge

message: I find the description of Henchard a little too harsh. Nothing is said of his softer, emotional side or of his tendency to want to do 'the right thing' on reflection - not being able to say Lucetta's name aloud when he reads her letters to Farfrae, not being able to kill Farfrae, not wanting to embaraas or hinder Elizabeth Jane later in the novel, etc. I won't change anything because I can see the section has been written with care and attention, but maybe the person who wrote it might consider nuancing a little more. The tragic elements of his charcter don't come through in this section. 88.136.74.170 (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2001/2003 ITV Film is an excellent, top-quality production (freely available on DVD) that remains true to Hardy's original novel.  I've started a section on this particular film with the hope that discussion will flesh-out the more dramatic elements of the story, and maybe this will help you with your concerns about the "other side" of Henchard. Please feel free to add or adjust this section to deal with any shortcomings. Santamoly (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too harsh on Henchard? 

message: There is some clumsy reverting happening in this article, so I'd like to remind potential reverters that the correct way to deal with something objectionable is NOT to revert without discussion, but to tag content with a  and discuss the troubling content. To revert a useful contribution without discussion is simply low-level vandalism, the literary equivalent of a "drive-by" shooting. Santamoly (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "clumsy reverting" on this article. Your contributions were reverted because they were PoV edits and not supported by sources or references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for personal and unsourced opinions, that is Wikipedia policy. The only "clumsy" edit I have seen is comments on my User page, rather than the accepted method of using the article or User Talk page. Please abide by Wikipedia conventions and don't shout when making comments. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Clumsy reverting

message: This article is extremely low quality due to the amount of POV edits, so I'm hoping that there's some enthusiasm for improving the quality.  I tried to make some useful (admittedly POV) edits, but was roundly denounced.  Thus the article is stuck with its original, very low quality, POV content.  I think the first attempt at cleaning up should be to remove all the older POV edits that are making a hash of the basic story line. Any takers? Santamoly (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of Article

message: It would be good if the article could say, as far as possible, when the story is set. Hardy doesn't exactly make it clear, but it must have been the first half of the nineteenth century. Maproom (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is it set? 

message: Substituted at 08:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment