Talk:The Sun Also Rises

message: "The character of Robert Cohn is a savage portrait of novelist Harold Loeb, who had aroused the anger of Hemingway by indulging in an amorous sojourn with Lady Duff Twysden in Normandy before bringing her to Spain."
Can anyone come up with a source that says they were in Normandy together? I can't find anything. Nadavspi | talk 01:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duff Twysden and Harold Loeb 

message: This entry seems to ignore the simple fact that Hemingway was a Modernist, and that Modernists used to hide the myth behind their plots and words--cf. Joyce. The entry doesn't say anything about the connections of the novel to the King Fisher myth, and the theme of sterility which Hemingway probably derived from Eliot. Behind or below the only apparently realistic surface there is a network of symbols, last but not least the bullfight which is evidently a pagan sacrifice in disguise. No mention of it. It's a rather shallow entry for a masterpiece of Twentieth Century Fiction! --93.40.118.37 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking?75.49.224.163 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think not. I agree.  The themes involving ethnic identity are well-developed, feminist approaches are touched on. But the book' s stature as an entry in the world of Modernist literature is barely touched upon.  Signs of our own times.   69.235.7.170 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism not Mentioned 

message: Also, Hemingway, whose vocabulary was never large, was fluent in three romance languages: French, Spanish, and Italian. Each of these has a much smaller vocabulary than English, and yet each manages to be richly expressive. Talking about Brett and Mike’s speech, Jake Barnes tells us that "The English spoken language—the upper classes, anyway—must have fewer words than the Eskimos. . . . The English talked with inflected phrases. One phrase to mean everything. . . . I liked the way they talked." Hemingway may have been inspired by the ways in which these European cultures, all of which he admired, managed to communicate effectively, even poetically, using so few words.
The article works well (more or less) up to this paragraph, wherein we have some strong POV statements.  First, the phrase "whose vocabulary was never large" is ambiguous.  While one could read it charitably to mean that Hemingway avoided florid prose, another reading would be that Hemingway lacked facility with the English language.  Whatever one's opinion of Hemingway's writing, a thorough survey of his works and correspondence shows that Hemingway was a sophisticated individual who consciously economized his words.  
Second, while Hemingway's interest in the aesthetics of expression might have driven his fascination with the romance languages, that is a matter of speculation unsuitable for a neutral encyclopedia article.
The 'Major Themes' section is a useful addition, but as it stands it requires some serious revision.  To begin with the second section makes some vaguely interesting points about the possibility of reverse initiation, but goes on to exhibit some obviously personal conjecture.  I also think comparing characters to the sun of the title is pretty fallacious and unhelpful, not to mention unsubstantiated.  The 'Major Characters' section also suffers from similar issues: the mention of Robert Cohn being Hemingway's 'hero' is pure conjecture and not referenced, and i think unlikely.  Where in the novel does it state that Romero left Brett because she couldn't sustain a commited relationship?  Pure assumption.  All we can know is that she finds herself in need of Jake's rescue, feeling chastened and silly.
I will edit this heavily in due course, making use of a university library to provide some balanced view points on some of the critical responses to this book, and its perceived major themes.  Particularly with reference to nature and natural process being the hero of the book (embodied to some extend by Romero), which Hemingway made explicit reference to in his correspondence (and for which i have proper references for).Turkeyplucker 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some POV issues 

message: Not to dwell on the old penis issue again, but I'd like to get an opinion on the wording used to describe Jake's injury in the Plot Summary. While I'll admit that by definition "mutilated" is an accurate choice, by connotation doesn't it seem out of line with how Jake injury is described in the book? This could just be my bias at work, but when I hear mutilated I think of...you know...bloody disfigurement. The issue is handled far more delicately in the book, only ever being termed an "impotency" issue. Do you think a slight rewording is in order? [by the way, I have no idea why, but this would only appear when I placed it at the top of the section, not the bottom. anyone know more about wiki formatting than I do?] Clemenjo (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury 

message: :Image:Hemingwaysun1.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 Wikipedia: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) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hemingwaysun1.jpg

message: I used to come to this article to see which characters were based on which real people, and the events Hemingway turned into the novel.  Now all that is gone.  Why on earth would that information be removed?  Even the fact that this is a roman is clef is omitted, while a lot of speculation (much of which becomes pointless once you grasp that Hemingway was drawing on real events) is allowed in the criticism section.76.216.91.243 (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at it, but if it's an unpublished source, I'd prefer we use a good scholarly secondary source for this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to this article?

message: That place in the article reads like a kid's book report. All is speculative and runs counter to Wikipedia's general tone. If anything, the title of that section ought to be renamed 'Analysis', but I personally don't think it belongs on Wikipedia at all. I would delete it, but I'd like some consensus on the matter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.131.20 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything in the section is easily cited (which is why I haven't deleted it). Please feel free to search for reliable, scholarly sources to add as references, and rewrite as necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I read through that entire section (something I failed to do the first time--read a couple lines and jumped to conclusions, etc) and I've found that my concern comes from the first few sentences: "The Sun Also Rises epitomized the post-war expatriate generation for future generations.[13] In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway melds Paris to Spain; vividly depicts the running of the bulls in Pamplona; presents the symmetry of bullfighting as a place to face death; and blends the frenzy of the fiesta with the tranquility of the Spanish landscape." This doesn't represent "Reception", which in this context is defined as "the way in which a person or people react to something." The first sentence might meet that definition (a bit of a stretch), but the second sentence definitely does not. But anyway, sorry for the rash initial comment, wikipedia universe!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.131.20 (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that the those statements should be moved to a themes sections. This article is on my list of articles to work on, but I haven't had the time. Thanks for pointing out the problems. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Reception' area 

message: It says here(Svoboda 106) that the title was chosen to "emphasize the optimistic idea of progress of life's cycle." Should this be included?Smallman12q (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I might try to work that in. What I'd like to know is whether he chose the title or whether the publisher's chose it. Would be nice to read Svoboda but it's in snippet view. I might have to order it from the library. Thanks anyway, it's another little piece of the puzzle. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: There is an excellent bibliography at http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/hemingwaytsarbib.htm Smallman12q (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon shows, with covers, Michael Reynolds, Hemingway: the Final Years and Hemingway: the Paris Years. Change to these as full titles?  --Wikiain (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out - of course they should have the full titles. Will fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the fixes, shouldn't both have colons? And maybe order those items 1989 and then 1999.  Also, for Svoboda, "Crafting"? --Wikiain (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: "A year later, in 1927,  the British publishing house Jonathan Cape published the novel in England with the title of Fiesta." Maybe "in the United Kingdom"? TGilmour (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks ok to me: Cape was based in London. But, if "in England" confuses the transatlantic, maybe just take it out.--Wikiain (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We decided to keep it in because it needs to be clear that Cape is in London/England. I think TGilmour is asking if it should be United Kingdom. England is prob fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "London publisher" and then remove "in England"? --Wikiain (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: It looks like it's changed since it was first written. That said, as you've written it is nice. Thanks for posting about it. Victoria (tk) 22:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Infoboxes are not required or mandatory. Telling us that the book was published in 1926 by Scribner's isn't giving any information not easily found in the lead. It's been boldly added, I've reverted, now per WP:BRD, it's time to discuss. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The article reads that "In 2004 a first edition of the novel, with dust jacket and an inscription by Hemingway, was expected to sell at auction for between $80,000 and $120,000" and points to http://www.sothebys.com/liveauctions/sneak/archive/la_lost_0404.html which is a 404.
A google cache of the page is still available (screenshot of cache). There's an article here which says it sold for over 360k USD. There's also an auction here for the book. The auction value should be corrected...and the source fixed.Smallman12q (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Smallman. Too bad that link went dead - it had a nice article. The "Live Auction Talk" looks like a blog, so until I can find something more reliable, I've commented out that section.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auction value 

message: The title is obviously a reworking into Modern English of the biblical quotation used as the epigraph, but the epigraph is only mentioned once in the article and I had to look closely to find it. I feel this should be drawn out in more detail -- I'm curious now as to when and why this was chosen as the book's title but I don't know the answer to either question. 2.25.131.173 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in the article because I couldn't find a reliable source that actually delineated when and why the title was chosen. I agree this does need more work and needs more digging. Will read some more and see what can be found. Thanks for the reminder. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title (again) 

message: There are a few inconsistencies which need to be sorted out. In some cases I could try to guess what the correction should be, but I think it is better to list them here:
* No citation for Oliver (1990).
* No citation for Elliot (1996).
* No citation for Mellow (1986).
Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is for Oliver 1990 (fn 25), Elliot 1996 (fn 77), and Mellow at bottom is listed as 1992 (and is in several footnotes). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation tweaks 

message: *Regarding recent edits by IP 108.45.72.196, mentioned on my talk, the aim is to summarize the source and present in an encyclopedic manner as it was here. The source doesn't specifically tell us what Max Perkins intended; the source tells us what the policy was at Scribners during that year. Moreover the "respectably sexy" is much too close to the source and a close paraphrase. To keep that phrase would require a full quote and attribution to the source - which really then gets into much more detail than is necessary for the dust-jacket image.  Please discuss. I've already reverted once; IP 108 reverted back. Now it's time to talk. Will keep an eye out here. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . Agree. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Last things first.  For all the reasons given in the above referenced thread by Wikiain, who knows something about the law, we should avoid repeating Mellow's unfortunate use of the phrase "breaking his contract" (p317).  Hemingway was not in breach of contract.  If he had been, Boni & Liveright would have sued him and Scribner's for the royalties/income from TSAR at least.  As we all know, they didn't sue, because B&L "broke the contract" by terminating it, not EH (the royalties went to Hadley R).  Instead of repeating the misleading/ambiguous/erroneous phrases of our sources, we should avoid them if possible.  My edit does this, by stating what Mellow otherwise says: that Hemingway maneuvered Boni & Liveright into terminating the contract. Perfectly legally. And just for wiggle room, the word "apparently" is in there.  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: see "objections" in previous section.
before:  Cleonike Damianakes illustrated the dust jacket with a Hellenistic design of a scantily robed woman, head bent, one hand holding an apple, thighs exposed. The title was decorated with apples—the intent was to present a quasi-sexual image tastefully.Leff (1999), 51
after:  Cleonike Damianakes illustrated the dust jacket with a Hellenistic design of a seated, robed woman, head bent, one hand holding an apple, shoulders and one thigh exposed. Editor Maxwell Perkins intended "Cleon"'s respectably sexyLeff (1999), 51 design to attract "the feminine readers who control the destinies of so many novels".qtd. in Leff (1999), 51
source:  Leff, p51, from GoogleBooks here.   --108.45.72.196 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dust jacket, recent edits by IP

message: Someone has adapted the novel into a play with music that starts its run in London's West End in about a week.  I could only find one news story about it via Google, News.  The mention has been removed twice from the "Legacy and adaptations" section of the article, cited to the play's website.  Another issue is that it appears to have been added by someone associated with the production (Oiffy).  Opinions are requested.  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comments on addition of FIESTA West End production, February 2013 

message: I have never heard an argument against including a works template such as  on the page of that work such as The Sun Also Rises. At Talk:Ernest Hemingway, you described the content of  as if it was trivia. All four of the current links on the template (The Sun Also Rises (1957 film), The Sun Also Rises (1984 film), The Sun Also Rises (opera), and The Sun Also Rises (ballet)) are considered notable works. They are a major motion picture and three other fairly faithful adaptations that were reviewed in The New York Times. Hemingway trivia would something like a link where a class of students was assigned The Sun Also Rises as homework. Can you explain your contrary position in terms of including  in The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Adaptations are already included with appropriate context in the article; this makes the template redundant. Furthermore, including such a navbox puts undue emphasis on adaptations, which are a minimally important part of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an argument against every properly constructed navbox. According to WP:NAVBOX articles in navboxes are suppose to refer to each other. If it were true, saying that the articles in the navbox are referred to in the article means the navbox is properly constructed. However, the article does not metion most of the adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are four links in the navbox; three are mentioned and linked in the article. Leaving aside the pointlessness of a navbox with only four links in it, 75% is "most". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I will repeat that navboxes are suppose to include articles that refer to each other. Obviously, the central article should refer to more than the variations. The purpose of a navbox is to present related subject matter in a manner that eases navigation. It is not suppose to present new material unseen in the prose above it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

text: P.S. note that there are now 5 versions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

text: *Hi , thanks for your comment. I agree that adaptations are important, as you say to "illustrate the work's importance", however I did mention in the other conversation in this post that the "Hemingway myth" engendered an inordinate amount of media mentions and adaptations, a conversation frankly I wished  hadn't closed because there was more to be said in that regard and better to keep the conversations in one place rather than having to traipse from page to page. Here the problem, as I see it,  is that this page mentions both the 1957 and the 1984 film adaptions in the text, as is appropriate for an FA quality page. Both films are also included in  so they're redundant on  and should be removed. That would only leave three entries on :  The Select (The Sun Also Rises) on off-Broadway theater production, a ballet (how can a novel be presented en pointe?), and a community theater opera production. In my view those three adaptations, giving the importance of this particular piece of literature and its enormous influence on 20th century literature, are of questionable notability. Per WP:Nav, and WP:CREEP my inclination is that it's better to have the opera, the ballet and the off-broadway production link into this page. As an aside: FA quality articles rarely include "See also" sections because the material is either woven into the text or left out as non-notable. Finally, no, I don't think consensus has been reached and the canvassing here is unhelpful. I won't revert again for the moment, but as the primary contributor (and if anyone looks at the contribution history, I really did do the heavy lifting on this page) I don't have anyone to pull in, so I'll leave you all to decide  how these issues of redundancy and consensus are to be resolved and I may stop back by in a few days. Victoria (tk) 00:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Redundancy (that is, possible repetition of something that may have been mentioned and linked in an article text) is not only irrelevant but to be expected in a good navbox. The purpose of the navbox is to present all related items in a short, neat, close, and easily understood/viewed package. The issue of some sort of Hemingway myth is completely irrelevant; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide and disseminate information as clearly as possible and to make it easily and readily available, not to obscure, censor or hide it. The lack of See Alsos is why FAs need navboxes. WP:CREEP doesn't apply to navboxes, and of course WP:Nav does not encourage censoring items -- navboxes should include all related items; that is their purpose. If you don't consider the opinion of a general reader (and informed Wikipedian) who appreciated the presence of an article and a navbox as helpful, then who should be opining on this page? I think it's better for people who understand the purpose and scope of navboxes to opine on this one's content and placement. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you resolve the problem of having two templates that include the same information - the two films are mentioned on both templates. If I hadn't considered the opinion of the general reader I seriously doubt I would have put the effort into making this page as good as I could, spent hundreds of hours reading sources and reducing to a page that was FA worthy. But if you don't believe I should be opining here, then fine. Victoria (tk) 01:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned, redundancy is not only expected but absolutely encouraged when it comes to two or more navboxes on the same page. That's not a problem, that is a goal. The point of an encyclopedia is to disseminate information as widely and as clearly and as understandably as possible, not to hide it, remove it, censor it, or prevent it from being desseminated. And the goal of Wikipedia is to link as many related or relevant articles as possible, to interlink the encyclopedia and aid navigation. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the goal is to direct traffic to a specific page for a specific reason, then that would be the argument to use. Otherwise, no. Regardless, consensus is a pillar. Victoria (tk) 01:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your reasoning for objecting to the template. I don't think literature buffs should be as condescending about ballet as you were above. Many understand the language of dance very well and almost all important ballets are adapted from one form of literature or another (usually plays or novels). The most famous ballet in my mind is an adaptation of a story (The Nutcracker). Yes novels can be presented en pointe. I am not sure what to make of the opera at this point because opera research is outside of my bailiwick. Feel free to WP:AFD it if you wish. I am not sure how it will fare in such a discussion. Nonetheless, a template with three or more relevant links will survive a well-reasoned WP:TFD. I have never heard of an editor with your level of experience misconcieving templates in the way that you have. There is no rule that two templates can not share a link. Keep in mind the only reason  and  share links is because you have led the charge to keep the film adaptations section rather than do away with it in favor of the 6 individual works templates I have been proposing. We could devolve into an endless discussion about that issue, but let's just proceed with the overlap. It is not a problem. An article can have several templates on it. If we did not allow multiple templates to share links each page could only have one template and we know this is not what we want. So what is your point. Do you really believe we should remove all but one template from every page on wikipedia and make sure no two templates share any links? Yes the templates overlap because their subjects over lap. One chronicles Hemingway's career and another shows things related to arguably his most important work. Clearly these two templates may overlap. That is not a reason to remove one from The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I don't feel asking people who are reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/The Sun Also Rises (ballet)‎ to comment here is WP:CANVASSing. Who else do we hope to help us reach a consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

text: If there can only be one template on this article (an enormously bewildering notion contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for), it makes more sense to have  one -- the one that belongs here. I'm, not sure what this means: "If the goal is to direct traffic to a specific page for a specific reason, then that would be the argument to use. Otherwise, no." The goal of Wikipedia is very clear: to allow users the greatest access to the greatest amount of accurate information in the easiest and quickest way. That's why templates exist -- all templates including Wikimedia templates, portal templates, media templates, Commons templates, etc. I invite you to look at the comparable FA novel articles (i.e. of those novels notable enough to have more than two adaptations): Candide and Uncle Tom's Cabin. Look closely at the templates there. The same can be done with other media like comparably adapted FA Plays: South Pacific, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet. Do the same with comparably adapted FA comics: Batman. Nowhere is there any restriction on the number of navboxes; quite the reverse: the more navboxes, the better, because that's what Wikipedia is about: promulgating information. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Batman is about a character, not a comic. But look at the Hamlet example: that navbox covers more facets of the topic than just adaptations, and so is more useful and balanced than the template under discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very few works in the history of literature that can rival the most important works of Shakespeare for encyclopedic content and almost none of them are modern works. If editors want to created articles for Hemingway characters, they could surely be included. I am not sure if his works have quotes, words, or phrases that deserve the attention of the encyclopedia, but if they do they can be added to the template. None of this affects the propriety of using  on The Sun Also Rises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does: as I already said, inclusion of the current template would place undue emphasis on adaptations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This assertation that a collapsed navbox at the bottom of a page that already includes a section entitled "Legacy and adaptations" places WP:UNDUE importance to adaptations is quite frankly ridiculous.  And to remove the template based on the suggestion that this is somehow a policy matter is really clutching at straws.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: A template can quite easily be useful in one context and not another - assuming this template is useful in any context. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Some of those absurdly minor adaptions like this  don't need templates, just wikilinks to the more major articles...Modernist (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the template should be nominated for deletion, rather than just removed from the articles.  If it exists, it should follow the guidelines.  It's borderline WP:NENAN, but whilst it stays, it should be present on the articles per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be nesting like this. Then the unwieldy template would not have to be used in places like The Sun Also Rises (ballet). You could convert the by works templates to single line versions like you show in your second  alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to nest, as actually, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, you'd still need to include the whole template.  And I thought my version 2 was maybe too vertical - this is even clumsier.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL require the whole unified template on the page of an adaptation?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because by nesting, each article is included in the unified template anyway.  By that inclusion, transclusion should be required.  Nesting is kind of pointless here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I have already stated that the opera adaptation may be AFDed so that should not be used as an example. Are there other "absurdly minor adaptions" at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: *If - You've already stated that the opera adaption may be AFDed - Then you do it Tony...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would probably oppose an AFD although I think an AFD may have justification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Hi Rob, thanks so much for reworking . I've wanted to give some thought to this and essentially what you've done is what I've thought we could do. I can support either version. We should probably remove the "Works" from the title and simply label it "Ernest Hemingway". I agree too with Modernist's comment about some of the minor adaptations. Adaptations really are a problem with Hemingway because there are quite a lot of them - (it's an area I need to research). I may be tweaking that template a bit more when I get an opportunity, but am happy to see what you've done there. Victoria (tk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about removing "works" from the title, but didn't know what to do with the link to Ernest Hemingway bibliography!  I guess maybe in an "above" parameter?  But incorporating the notable adaptations in the main navbox seems to address most concerns (and the ones previously regarding navboxes at Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Ernest Hemingway templates).  Then (but only then) the individual navboxes can be removed from pages like this and ultimately deleted for redundancy.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Minor amendments:  OPTION 1 OPTION 2  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could either remove the bibliography link, or rename. It's in the "See also" in the main bio and if removed, I'd add to all the articles throughout the series. Or we can rename the page and the template link to Works and adaptations by Ernest Hemingway. Ernest Hemingway bibliography has been heavily edited and now includes much of what's on the template. For a long time I've thought that page should be a list and a repository for all the Hemingway adaptions and such. Re above links, I prefer OPTION 1. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think anyone would expect to see a link to it in the template.  I think it works in the "above" parameter (per my newer options).  Maybe there's some merit in a separate "adaptations" article, that way the "absurdly minor adaptions" could be covered without the need for their own articles.  But we seem to have digressed and are probably now having this conversation in the wrong place!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, it is a digression and it's a page that's fallen way on the back burner. I do like how you incorporated it in OPTION 1 and am happy with the solution/s you've provided. And thanks for doing the work! It's something I meant to play with on the weekend when I got some time.  Victoria (tk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 2 is way more useful/accessible to the reader that is seeking information about adapations. Still looking for an answer above about WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: *I think it would be better to hash this out at the new thread on the EH talk or on the  talk, but brief response is that OPTION 2 preserves the chronology of the publication dates whereas Option 3 doesn't. Because some are novels, some short stories, some very loosely based adaptations whereas EH was on set and heavily involved with others, it makes more sense to have the template as OPTION 1 with the works separated by novels, short stories, non-fiction, posthumous, then film adaptations, television adaptations, and perhaps stage adaptations. Some such as Bold Venture and Bacall to Arms might be left out until they can be properly sourced (Bacall to Arms is failing source verification at the moment so needs some digging). Let's get consensus one step at a time and have others weigh in on the issue of moving everything to  which would make  redundant.  Victoria (tk) 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had to strike through that second part, given the uphill battle over the last few days trying to get Tony to see the clear consensus for a merge of the smaller templates to  here.  It's a shame that what had been such a friendly environment to reach a consensus in had to deteriorate like that, like so many experiences here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not contested merging the smaller templates to . However, with the number of times you have been reverted at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, you should understand that merging them does not mandate the larger template's use on the adaptions where most of the content is irrelevant and distracting. Merging them into the larger template does not make the larger template more desirable on the adaptation articles and as many people have told you BIDIRECTIONAL does not mean that the larger template must appear on the adaptation pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template removal 

message: *Suggestion.  Okay - this version of  incorporates all the adaptations and related from all the other templates, so only one navbox would be needed across the board.  Thoughts?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those absurdly minor adaptions like this  don't need templates, just wikilinks to the more major articles...Modernist (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the template should be nominated for deletion, rather than just removed from the articles.  If it exists, it should follow the guidelines.  It's borderline WP:NENAN, but whilst it stays, it should be present on the articles per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be nesting like this. Then the unwieldy template would not have to be used in places like The Sun Also Rises (ballet). You could convert the by works templates to single line versions like you show in your second  alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to nest, as actually, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, you'd still need to include the whole template.  And I thought my version 2 was maybe too vertical - this is even clumsier.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL require the whole unified template on the page of an adaptation?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because by nesting, each article is included in the unified template anyway.  By that inclusion, transclusion should be required.  Nesting is kind of pointless here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I have already stated that the opera adaptation may be AFDed so that should not be used as an example. Are there other "absurdly minor adaptions" at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: *If - You've already stated that the opera adaption may be AFDed - Then you do it Tony...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would probably oppose an AFD although I think an AFD may have justification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Hi Rob, thanks so much for reworking . I've wanted to give some thought to this and essentially what you've done is what I've thought we could do. I can support either version. We should probably remove the "Works" from the title and simply label it "Ernest Hemingway". I agree too with Modernist's comment about some of the minor adaptations. Adaptations really are a problem with Hemingway because there are quite a lot of them - (it's an area I need to research). I may be tweaking that template a bit more when I get an opportunity, but am happy to see what you've done there. Victoria (tk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about removing "works" from the title, but didn't know what to do with the link to Ernest Hemingway bibliography!  I guess maybe in an "above" parameter?  But incorporating the notable adaptations in the main navbox seems to address most concerns (and the ones previously regarding navboxes at Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Ernest Hemingway templates).  Then (but only then) the individual navboxes can be removed from pages like this and ultimately deleted for redundancy.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Minor amendments:  OPTION 1 OPTION 2  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could either remove the bibliography link, or rename. It's in the "See also" in the main bio and if removed, I'd add to all the articles throughout the series. Or we can rename the page and the template link to Works and adaptations by Ernest Hemingway. Ernest Hemingway bibliography has been heavily edited and now includes much of what's on the template. For a long time I've thought that page should be a list and a repository for all the Hemingway adaptions and such. Re above links, I prefer OPTION 1. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think anyone would expect to see a link to it in the template.  I think it works in the "above" parameter (per my newer options).  Maybe there's some merit in a separate "adaptations" article, that way the "absurdly minor adaptions" could be covered without the need for their own articles.  But we seem to have digressed and are probably now having this conversation in the wrong place!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, it is a digression and it's a page that's fallen way on the back burner. I do like how you incorporated it in OPTION 1 and am happy with the solution/s you've provided. And thanks for doing the work! It's something I meant to play with on the weekend when I got some time.  Victoria (tk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 2 is way more useful/accessible to the reader that is seeking information about adapations. Still looking for an answer above about WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: *I think it would be better to hash this out at the new thread on the EH talk or on the  talk, but brief response is that OPTION 2 preserves the chronology of the publication dates whereas Option 3 doesn't. Because some are novels, some short stories, some very loosely based adaptations whereas EH was on set and heavily involved with others, it makes more sense to have the template as OPTION 1 with the works separated by novels, short stories, non-fiction, posthumous, then film adaptations, television adaptations, and perhaps stage adaptations. Some such as Bold Venture and Bacall to Arms might be left out until they can be properly sourced (Bacall to Arms is failing source verification at the moment so needs some digging). Let's get consensus one step at a time and have others weigh in on the issue of moving everything to  which would make  redundant.  Victoria (tk) 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: Remove  from this page and implement changes to  (with discussion either on the template page or or here to decide how it should look). Yes? No? Comments? Victoria (tk) 15:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had to strike through that second part, given the uphill battle over the last few days trying to get Tony to see the clear consensus for a merge of the smaller templates to  here.  It's a shame that what had been such a friendly environment to reach a consensus in had to deteriorate like that, like so many experiences here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not contested merging the smaller templates to . However, with the number of times you have been reverted at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, you should understand that merging them does not mandate the larger template's use on the adaptions where most of the content is irrelevant and distracting. Merging them into the larger template does not make the larger template more desirable on the adaptation articles and as many people have told you BIDIRECTIONAL does not mean that the larger template must appear on the adaptation pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Nominator has pointed towards a discussion here, I am notifying about the deletion entry on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_20#Various_Hemingway_navboxes. Hajme 09:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFD notification 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Sun Also Rises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408171529/http://www.kcstar.com/hemingway/ehstarstyle.shtml to http://www.kcstar.com/hemingway/ehstarstyle.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed :File:The Sun Also Rises dust jacket.jpg, added in this edit, visible here in the publications section. On my monitor it breaks the formatting. It's nice to have the entire dust jacket, but I'm not convinced it's necessary on this page - I've never added front/back dust jackets to any other literature pages - but if it can be formatted better have no objection. Any ideas/comments? Victoria (tk) 00:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: First edition dustjacket