Talk:Reception history of Jane Austen

message: Article could do with more expansion on the general ignorance of Austen in Russia. It's only mentioned briefly and she is not rated highly there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.252.74 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: "The questions scholars now investigate involve: "the Revolution, war, nationalism, empire, class, 'improvement' [of the estate], the clergy, town versus country, abolition, the professions, female emancipation; whether her politics were Tory, Whig, or radical; whether she was a conservative or a revolutionary, or occupied a reformist position between these extremes"."
Which Revolution?  French?  American?  Needs to be made clear.  I suspect the American revolution is what is meant, as this article has a definite US slant, but it needs clarifying. 
I have also removed the identification of FR Leavis and EM Forster as 'British'.  Other critics mentioned do not have their nationalities given so I fail to see why these two should be singled out. It smacks rather of a US-centric viewpoint ie treat the US as the default, which should not be the case.86.134.25.190 (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rajan is referring to the French Revolution (Google book link).  I've clarified this in the article. María (yllosubmarine) 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 101 is missing from that GoogleBooks preview. Therefore, I cannot read what Rajan wrote about "Revolution" and Austen. Do you own the book, María (yllosubmarine) ? Another revolution that was happening in the same period was the Industrial Revolution, which was very disjointing for western culture, especially the quiet rural, agrarian life that Austen wrote about. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , sadly  has retired from editing WP. But I can see that page on google books (g-book page visibility is erratic and can depend on the viewer's location), but just to confirm that Rajan is talking about the French Revolution. Victoria (tk) 21:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I was unaware that GoogleBooks returns variable search variations for different searchers. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Revolution? 

message: I was reading this (marvellous) article because it had appeared for me on the main page as TFA (prematurely, it is due 21 January). In the section "Nineteenth-century European translations" (even at the time the article was featured) there is quite a bit of reference to Montolieu's supposed translation of Pride and Prejudice citing Cossy, Valérie and Diego Saglia. "Translations". Jane Austen in Context. Ed. Janet Todd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0521826446. 171. As I read it, it is the translation in the journal Bibliothèque britannique that Cossy is criticising: Orgueil et Préjugé. It may be that this translation is anonymous. So far as I can see Montolieu translated only Persuasion and Sense and Sensibility. Cossy has also written here. I would  have simply changed the name of the translator except she is discussed in some detail in the paragraph and to some extent the content clashes with what is in the next paragraph starting "A study of other important dimensions of the French translations" which was added after the article had been featured but which I suspect is on target. Trying to edit and reconcile the remarks about critics of Austen's translators (!) is way too far outside my abilities so I hope someone can come to the rescue. I'm now reading on ... Thincat (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Montolieu's supposed translation of ''Pride and Prejudice'' 

message: Among other things, Template:Main states it is intended to be used " to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized" (bolding mine) ... Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above." Jane Austen is not the subtopic, this article is. Plus, as I have already stated in my edit comment, "It is not to be used as a substitute for inline links" (bolding not mine). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what "inline links" you believe the hatnote to serve as a "substitute" for. Your first edit summary suggested your position was based on WP:OVERLINK in that Jane Austen was already linked in the WP:LEAD. These are exact opposite positions.In any case, the lead summarizes the article, so its content, including links, will by definition duplicate (overlap) the rest of the article. OVERLINK is thus not an issue between the lead and the body. The hatnote also does not substitute for any inline link in article prose, and if you feel an inline link is missing then do feel free to add one.But ultimately, the relevant reference here is summary style (MoS). This article uses summary style for the (biographical) "Background" section: it summarizes the aspects of Austen's biography from Jane Austen that are relevant for this article. And per WP:SS, this is indicated using a hatnote. WP:SS also operates per section, not per article, so which article is the one with the widest topic doesn't really matter. It's just that the examples in WP:SS deal with the most common case, the one where more detailed material has to be split out from a more general article out of WP:SIZE concerns. From the point of view of the "Background" section in this article, Jane Austen is the sub-article even though it is a wider topic. --Xover (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The inline link is Jane Austen, of course. And your notion that her's is the subtopic is cringeworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template usage 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus for any particular standard here (bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK, feel free to start a broader RfC or to nominate these individually. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 06:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

text: *You do realize that just as "Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach" can be seen as Bach the person, the current titles for the Austen and Tolkien can be as well? A blanket oppose doesn't seem to be aligned with your actual views here, I'm surprised you didn't consider #4, at the least. Aza24 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: **A blanket oppose is in line with my views: there is no "series" calling for a WP:CONSISTENT article titling scheme. If any of these articles need to change name that should be proposed on a case-by-case basis. No, Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music should not be renamed to Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's works. That would be quite counterproductive. For clarity: in scholarship, what is now called "Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music" in Wikipedia, is often called simply "Bach reception" (which, in scholarship, is indeed about the reception of the composer's music, not about the reception of his person). That would be my second choice for the article title, but when I initiated the article I did not choose that shorter title while too ambiguous in Wikipedia surroundings: there are too many Bachs (including e.g. this one) – "reception" articles all in all not being very common (you found no more than three when starting this RM) I thought at the time that a full descriptive title would be best. But I do think it possible that, over time (when, for instance, in the future there would be a few hundred "reception" articles in Wikipedia), the article would move to "Bach reception" (which is consistent with scholarship), but never to "Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's works". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: ***Uh... what? You're addressing things that have nothing to do with what I just said. If you had chosen #4, it would have preserved the current title for the Bach article and changed the others to "Reception Jane Austen/J. R. R. Tolkien's writings", but you seem too obsessed with whatever the rant above is. Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: ****No, my reply was perfectly adequate. I don't want a rule in the sense you are proposing. Not any of the "options". There is no series in the sense of WP:CONSISTENT. No such rule should hamper, for instance, a future RM proposing to rename Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music to Bach reception, and let that procedure turn out whatever is the consensus at that time. The WP:RULECRUFT you're proposing is no good, not under any circumstance. So, please stop trying to undermine my exact !vote, which is exactly what I've been describing and nothing else: I oppose all options of the current RM, and more fundamentally oppose the idea that a one-mold-fits-all should be imposed on these three, and any future, reception-related article titles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: feel free to take to move review if you really find my close so problematic (but it's been long enough that you might be better off just starting a new RM). Relisting isn't a secret sauce to generate more consensus, and I doubt it would've actually improved this discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 May 2021 

message: * 3, second choice 4— I would say that "history" is implied (2) and the name alone (1) might be mislead readers that the article is referring to the person's character, and is vague. There seems no reason to specify the type of work being discussed (though that seems the second-best option if three is undesirable to others) and it would be sensible to find some uniformity here. I will admit however, that no option really stands out as blatantly obvious to me. Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

text: *You do realize that just as "Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach" can be seen as Bach the person, the current titles for the Austen and Tolkien can be as well? A blanket oppose doesn't seem to be aligned with your actual views here, I'm surprised you didn't consider #4, at the least. Aza24 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: **A blanket oppose is in line with my views: there is no "series" calling for a WP:CONSISTENT article titling scheme. If any of these articles need to change name that should be proposed on a case-by-case basis. No, Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music should not be renamed to Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's works. That would be quite counterproductive. For clarity: in scholarship, what is now called "Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music" in Wikipedia, is often called simply "Bach reception" (which, in scholarship, is indeed about the reception of the composer's music, not about the reception of his person). That would be my second choice for the article title, but when I initiated the article I did not choose that shorter title while too ambiguous in Wikipedia surroundings: there are too many Bachs (including e.g. this one) – "reception" articles all in all not being very common (you found no more than three when starting this RM) I thought at the time that a full descriptive title would be best. But I do think it possible that, over time (when, for instance, in the future there would be a few hundred "reception" articles in Wikipedia), the article would move to "Bach reception" (which is consistent with scholarship), but never to "Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's works". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: ***Uh... what? You're addressing things that have nothing to do with what I just said. If you had chosen #4, it would have preserved the current title for the Bach article and changed the others to "Reception Jane Austen/J. R. R. Tolkien's writings", but you seem too obsessed with whatever the rant above is. Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: ****No, my reply was perfectly adequate. I don't want a rule in the sense you are proposing. Not any of the "options". There is no series in the sense of WP:CONSISTENT. No such rule should hamper, for instance, a future RM proposing to rename Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music to Bach reception, and let that procedure turn out whatever is the consensus at that time. The WP:RULECRUFT you're proposing is no good, not under any circumstance. So, please stop trying to undermine my exact !vote, which is exactly what I've been describing and nothing else: I oppose all options of the current RM, and more fundamentally oppose the idea that a one-mold-fits-all should be imposed on these three, and any future, reception-related article titles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: feel free to take to move review if you really find my close so problematic (but it's been long enough that you might be better off just starting a new RM). Relisting isn't a secret sauce to generate more consensus, and I doubt it would've actually improved this discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments