Talk:David Copperfield

message: There are over 50 characters introduced in the novel. It is often difficult to keep them straight (although not as difficult as War and Peace which has over 500). This is known in literary parlance as a "crowded novel". 
Our Wikipedia article would be of real value to the reader if it listed the characters (perhaps in order of appearance) along with a short contexual summary of who they are and where known from. I'm not sure I have the time or resources, but will consider it, but would be a wonderful project for someone so inclined. It may even allready be on the web somewhere. Stbalbach 21:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a list of characters online. Linked in the Resources section. Stbalbach 21:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful to have a more visual helpful presentation of characters to the reader, i.e. a diagram of important characters with their relationships to David Copperfield. I shall put in the work to produce that. Spoowy (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the visual representation (although in bad handwriting). It would be nice if it were transformed into a digital diagram.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin Flaming (talk • contribs) 12:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  50+ characters 

message: This article contains numerous errors.  As far as I can tell, Dora Spenlow never suffered a miscarriage, Dr. Strong was not a medical doctor, and did not attend to Dora during the supposed miscarriage.  Someone who actually read this book should do a cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.188.246 (talk • contribs) .
Dora did suffer a miscarriage, from which she never recovered her health.  Don't remember anything about Dr. Strong attending on Dora, but it's a large book and I may have forgotten.  --Miczilla (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: errors

message: *Oppose
**Oppose. This fictional character is important enough to merit his own article in Wikipedia. The article on the character, however, should be cleaned up and dealt with by an expert.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it worth re-opening this discussion? Personally I don't see the point of the separate article on the character David Copperfield (character). The above suggests that this should have been done before now. Rwood128 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Also, the various articles on other characters are trivial. Rwood128 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[David Copperfield (character)]] into this article 

message: Do we have to slavishly follow common practice? A basic tenet of WP is that rules can be broken, if they get in the way. The lede in particular should focus the eye on important matters, not trivial clutter. The use of bold here makes it seem that the sub-title is the most important fact in the lede. Rwood128 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to change it for this one book. The full title (it is not a subtitle) is not "trivial" and it being in bold lettering does not change the focus of the lede nor does it cause any distraction to the readers eye. You may want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT as that is what your argument seems to boil down to. MarnetteD|Talk 14:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the mis-use of emphasis that I don't like. Clearly it doesn't distract you, but try and think of an average reader. None of my reference works think it worth mentioning. Rwood128 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly it distracts you but please don't presume to speak for the "average reader" until you can provide empiric evidence about what they think. In the spirit of that I have struck my comment about readers above. If you had read WP:IDONTLIKEIT you would know that is not a reason to change things in this articles lede section. I am not sure what reference works you have (and the fact that they don't mention it is not a reason to remove the bold lettering) but all of mine mention the full title. It is on the cover artwork in the infobox. It should also be noted that just because it is long is also not a reason to ignore common practice. One further thing to note is that this book isn't the only item with a long title that is in bold lettering in Wikipedia articles. MarnetteD|Talk 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My tone above is somewhat condescending, sorry, it could have been phrased better. I'm not saying that the full title should not be mentioned anywhere. Rwood128 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

text: PS: I now realise that it was the length of the full title here that caused my reaction, as I don't have the same problem with the titles of other of Dickens's novels! Rwood128 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold for the full title in the lede 

message: Substituted at 12:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine to have an article on the character in my view. But this article on the novel is Start Class, with just 3 inline citations. There is a short list of sources in the Bibliography, but they are not used to discuss the novel. This article has characters and plot, which are reasonably good, the too-often repeated line about this being autobiographical of the author's life, not so much about the character's life. There is no summary of the initial reviews of this novel, or the reviews in following decades and centuries.  In short, none of the richness of the articles about two later novels, Great Expectations or Our Mutual Friend. Is there a flag to put in the article, about wanting more about its literary reception, themes, any social commentary, quality of the characters, and so on?  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

text: The article in French about this novel is detailed, perhaps a source to enhance this article?--Prairieplant (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for putting my remark in an illogical place, . I meant to say that the French Wikipedia article on the novel David Copperfield https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield has more extensive discussion of the novel and might be a start for expanding the English article on the novel David Copperfield. It has a long list of inline references and at the top, it is called un article de qualité, an article of quality (literally), which seems to be a top class article in French Wikipedia. I moved both comments down to the section Assessment comments below, at the end of the Talk page. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the French article is more comprehensive, far better written, and better sourced than the English one.Straw Cat (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I still don't believe this would necessitate having an expand French tag. In my experience, expand tags are for foreign language topics that only have a stub-type article and need expansion. This article is sufficiently long and detailed, far longer than the average article by my approximation. The fact that there is a better article somewhere does not mean we should have an unsightly maintenance tag on the article. Having the discussion here is more than sufficient - if someone wants to fix it they can, this suggestion has been here for years. I didn't take it out again but I don't think it belongs. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm going to attempt to use the French article, with the help of Google translate. The assistance of other editors would be most helpful! There appears to be a wealth of valuable material in the French article, though my French is very limited. Rwood128 (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will do my best to assist. Great novels that have been much discussed warrant more substantial articles in Wikipedia. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, Prairieplant, your offer is most encouraging. I am working on Des fragments d'autobiographie, which is the first section under Genèse du roman. Rwood128 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  that is a good place to start. Will you translate and then post to the article, or first put it on a sandbox page? Anyway, I just read that section, and it is good, with so many references, using major books in English about Dickens, and including page numbers, using the short reference system, linking to the book's full title in another section.  --Prairieplant (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Prairieplant, I hope to add a short addition to the article shortly. Rwood128 (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Prairieplant I'm thinking of trying "Symbolism" next. The autobiography section certainly was time consuming. What sections do you think are most important to start on? Rwood128 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I have my doubts about the quality of the "Symbolism" section, though that may be, in part at least, a problem with Google's translating– and my French is meagre. Anyhow I have now downloaded an article in English on this topic. Prairieplant have you looked closely at the French article, which seems to be Article de qualité? Rwood128 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Read in French, the symbolism section seems good to me. Perhaps you have read other sources about the symbolism used in the novel? The translation needs a good eye, as google translate uses "historical" when the sentence means "in the story" or "in the plot" or "in the novel", and leitmotif never ends in "ve" in English use, as we do not change endings for gender of a noun. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

text: , How do you want to handle references? Wait until the text is brought over? I could use cite format after you translate, but then I expect some author will be cited often, and need short ref linking to a full ref with a good list of Sources for the full refs, for example Schlicke. As you choose, either way is fine with me.  --Prairieplant (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Is anyone working on translating the French article, or have any suggestions on the most important sections that might be translated? Rwood128 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The next section in the French article is La poésie du « je » and that might be good. One word in there takes some thought, décantation. Decantation in English gets only the chemist's meaning. But Larousse French dictionary gives the French term the meaning of simplifying something or simplifying a situation in addition to those chemistry and wine-making meanings. I cannot think of another word in its place, and the word "simplicity" is already in the sentence. Maybe that is enough. By that, I mean the google translation is pretty good for this section, until it hits that word, décantation. I will work on references but not until Monday, too tired right now. The Symbolism section is very good.  --Prairieplant (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Prairieplant thanks for your kind comments on the "symbolism" section. I'm not clear as o whether you plan to continue working on La poésie du « je », or if you are suggesting that it should be the next one that I attempt? It is certainly a great help to know that there is at least one other set of eyes taking an interest. Rwood128 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  I am hesitating to put the translation up myself, I guess, which is why I did not make it clear. I think you do a better job, and you have other sources at hand, if you want to see if the French article is up to date. Right now, I think I should get to the reference formats. I need to brush up on the short/long reference format, for sources often cited; the rest of formatting, I have that memorized.  --Prairieplant (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Prairieplant for the encouragement, and the earlier comment re décantation. I'll continue working on this and leave any revision of reference formatting to you. Rwood128 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Prairieplant I've just noticed that the French article on The Old Curiosity Shop is much fuller than the English article. I have tagged it, even though I'm uncertain of its quality. Rwood128 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: /Archive 1    --Prairieplant (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: First Archive of Talk page set up

message: I would like to congratulate the contributors to this article for the brilliant use they have made of the French article. However, I wonder whether it would'nt be fair to acknowledge this debt (as we always do on this side of the channel) when we borrow from articles written in English or any other language. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any relevant mention in the main article.  With every good wish, --Robert Ferrieux (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Robert Ferrieux for the kind comments. I'm checking on how this is done. Rwood128 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

text: The small box on this Talk page is what English Wikipedia requests when we translate from another Wikipedia, on the talk page but not on the article page. That little box also shows at the bottom of the Talk page in Categories, that this is in the category of articles translated from French Wikipedia. Why the rules are that way, I could not say! Before we added the text, there was a flag on top of the article saying how much better this article would be with translations from the French article; now that the translations are here, that flag is removed. And as Rwood128 noted, each time we added the translated text, the Edit summary for the article (view history) stated that it was a translation from the article in French Wikipedia. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Getting brave, I put a comment on the Talk page in French Wikipedia, when I found that John O Jordan was mentioned in text where the name was really Gareth Cordery, based on the page numbers cited in the book by David Paroissien, a collection of great essays on Charles Dickens. And I see that you have modified the French article in the same way that I modified the English article, to cite Cordery in the text and in the inline citation. We have gained greatly from the French Wikipedia article, . --Prairieplant (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  is that your book we cited in the article? I just looked at the edits you did. I did not know the book was available in both languages, French and English. Is the translation in the text adequate? I modified the language parameter to say French and English, though we used the version from French Wikipedia, so I presume the ISBN is for the book in French, not in English, c'est vrai ?  --Prairieplant (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Fine. The book mentioned is a collective effort, but I wrote the greatest part of it. There is only one version, the one published in 2001 by Ellipses. The reason why I added 'en' to 'fr' is that if most chapters are in French, some, depending on the choice of authors, are in English. The reference to Georges Gusdorf comes from a chapter in French written by myself. The ISBN concerns the whole book. Many thanks for your compliments. I often use the English version as a basis before expatiating on it. I love this kind of collabotation, often occult, but sometimes open and direct. Please let's keep in touch, we might be of some help to each other. May I ask you both to use my French talkpage (English is most welcome): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Robert_Ferrieux. Best regards, --Robert Ferrieux (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor comment by Robert Ferrieux 

message: : Prairieplant, re recent edits, see the following, from the article (the final paragraph):
::One puzzling mismatch between the text and accompanying illustrations is that of the Peggotty family's boat-house "cottage" on the Yarmouth sands (pictured). It is clear from the text that the author envisaged the house as an upright boat, whereas the illustrator depicted it as an upturned hull resting on the beach with holes cut for the doors and windows. Interior illustrations of the cottage also show it as a room with curved ceiling beams implying an upturned hull. Although Dickens seemed to have had the opportunity to correct this discrepancy he never did, suggesting that he was happy with the illustrator's depiction.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 15:53 June 5, 2020 (UTC) 
:Okay, thanks. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peggotty's boat house 

message: No mention of him making the statue of liberty disappear? 14.200.219.9 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing key moments 

message: I changed the note referring to Davis 1999 to a ref, using harvb format, as his much-referenced work is in the bibliography list. Is there a page number for that? The second paragraph looks like this
:Situated in the middle of Dickens's career, it represents, according to Paul Davis, a turning point in his work, the point of separation between the novels of youth and those of maturity.[157] In 1850, Dickens was 38 years old and had twenty more to live, which he filled with other masterpieces, often denser, sometimes darker, that addressed most of the political, social and personal issues he faced.
:At 157 is where the ref to Davis 1999 is. 
:A smaller point, should he be Paul B Davis in the bibliography? World Cat lists him that way, and he is Paul B Davis emeritus professor at U of New Mexico. Small point for a big author. 
:I think he did a revision in 2006 with a different title, Charles Dickens : A Literary Reference to His Life and Work by Paul B. Davis, hardcover publisher by Facts on File with  -- things I learn in hopes of finding some of the text of his book on line, which of course I did not find. This page here from World Cat shows the table of contents for the revised version of his "encyclopedia of Dickens" and says it was published in 2007 by Facts on File as hardcover and as an e-book.. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Prairieplant, I cannot help. My university library has this book, but we are in lockdown, with urgent library access only. I didn't add this. Rwood128 (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed a Note to a ref in Literary significance and reception, 2nd paragraph 

message: , when I recently mentioned the "s'"s controversy to a retired, Canadian professor of English, she emphatically stated that "Dickens'" is  wrong, and the The New Yorker and other American journals that she reads use "s's". I have just consulted two books published by American publishers and one American journal and they confirm this.Rwood128 (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Canadian and American styles are settled. - - Prairieplant (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophe 

message: Dear All,
I believe the entire life of David Copperfiled was the life of Charles Dickens itself, changing Charles Dickens(CD) to David Copperfield (DC). Thanks. Wrsdes (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Dickens (C.D). David Copperfield (D.C) Inversion of characters