Talk:Robert Louis Stevenson

Omit "The"

In the article, the book is referred to (including a link) "The Strange Case..." The title is actually, "Strange Case..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncndamweber (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Y Done--JayJasper (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Modern reception

When i click on "Modern literature" i arrive at a disambiguation page. So, what's the proper article to link to: modernist literature or modern literature?--Narayan (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

History of modern literature seems to be the appropriate link in this context. I've disambiguated the link accordingly.--JayJasper (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

'The hunt for lost Stevenson treasures'

• Scotland on Sunday

--Mais oui! (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson website

This was removed from the article as being a "plug":

In 2009 [[Edinburgh Napier University]] launched The Robert Louis Stevenson website, a major online resource for scholars and the public.<ref>[http://www.robert-louis-stevenson.org/about-robert-louis-stevenson-project The Robert Louis Stevenson website], About.</ref>

First off, I have no connection to the website, university etc.. so it's not "plugging". Second, this is not your typical website, it is a major scholarly effort and is the only authoritative website for Stevenson online. It's set up and run by the worlds leading Stevenson scholars in Stevenson's home city with major grants from various world institutions. It's notable and deserves mention in the section called Modern reception as part of Stevenson's continued revival. This website is fairly new (2009) but Wikipedia is behind the times in incorporating it into the various Stevenson articles - other than Google Books, this is perhaps the most reliable source online for Stevenson information, all the information is written and vetted by professional Stevenson scholars. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I have no problem with its being in the external-links section of the article. Many authors have more or less elaborate Web sites devoted to them, and linking to such sites is what that section is for; we don't usually discuss the sites in the authors' articles. I don't think that this site is a major element of the reception of Stevenson, nor do I see it as independently notable. Let's see what others think. Deor (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a major element in the modern reception of Stevenson, if you look at the About page who sponsored it. It's not a fan site, it's not a graduate program project, it's not a university professors project. It's the major online resource for Stevenson backed by multiple types of international institutions. It's funny how we often consider websites as being non-notable, but books and movies usually have no problem being mentioned, even minor ones. Some web sites really are notable enough to be discussed in the article. My guess is your not familiar with Stevenson studies. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Deor. The fact that a website has been devoted to Stevenson tells us little about Stevenson's reception - their are excellent websites devoted to the most obscure subjects in the academic world. N p holmes (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo Date

In the Gallery, left photo, second row: Which is it, c. 1888 as it says under the thumbnail, or 1870 as under the full photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.145.224 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Google Doodle

Google made a doodle for his birthday, and this article is the first link. This would be a good time for some polishing. I fixed the image link in the Childhood section, who's next? Jobarts^-Talk 06:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for vandalism... N419BH 06:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Some vandalism is already starting, going ahead and removing it. (Correction: someone fixed it before me. :P) Dmaxel94 (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The doodle should be added in the Commemorations section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.94.110 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I vote to remove most of the paragraph on how many authors liked Stevenson. If we're going to include anything about his reception, just say what it was and is, not who 'just loves' Stevenson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A contradiction

In the article on Stevenson, it is stated that "Stevenson now ranks among the 50 most translated authors in the world, just below Charles Dickens.[1]" and further into the article that statement is contradicted by "Stevenson is ranked the 28th most translated author in the world, ahead of fellow nineteenth-century writers Charles Dickens". The contradiction of "just below" and "ahead of" needs to be resolved.

174.115.38.22 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dickens is 27th, Stevenson is 28th [1]. The article currently reflects this. Thanks. Jobarts^-Talk 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)