Talk:Eleanor Alice Burford

Untitled

Place of birth: As I found it the page (and 101 other places on the Net) said "Kensington" and "South London", which are inconsistent. Kensington is north of the Thames and hardly a "suburb". Perhaps a peak at ODNB and/or Britannica might settle the matter, but my money is on "Kennington", definitely a suburb in "South London" and just the sort of place an odd-job man might have lived in 1906. Bmcln1 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits: One removed, one to go

Fixed the sentence

   From 1950 to 1953 she wrote 5 (incorrect; there are 4 Elbur Ford novels) 

in "Writing career". There is another entry that needs fixing in bibliography:

   Daughters of England Series
   6. The Love Child, (1950) (later re-published under the Philippa Carr name)INCORRECT. 'THE LOVE CHILD' WRITTEN USING THE NAME 'PHILIPPA CARR' IS NOT THE SAME AS THIS ONE! 

I can't do this, because I'm not an expert on Hibbert and it needs a bit of research.

--Raglad (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Titles of her books

A discussion has arisen between Paul75 and myself, on our talk pages, about what titles to give for her books. I think it would be more to the point to have it here.

Paul75 began removing US titles of some of her books and replacing them with UK titles alone. I sent him this message: "Dear Paul, what are you actually doing here? I agree that British titles could come first, but I think it's a mistake to erase alternative titles just for being American. I should think about two-thirds of her readers were American. Please confirm that you have read this and explain what policy you are pursuing on this and why. Cheers, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)"

Paul75 has replied as follows: "Hi Brian Thanks for you message. The issue here is that as I understand it, the Wikipedia guidelines regarding language, publications etc is to use the language/title relevant to the subject's nationality. In this case Hibbert is English and as such her biography should adhere to English language and grammar rules and also her body of work should list her novels by the title used in the UK. It would become messy and confusing if every single American title was listed, and where do we stop? Do we list every title by the name it is known in France, Germany and Spain? There is already a sentence that explains many of her novels had different names in the USA. "Secondly, many of the American names were listed incorrectly - the editor had stated that they were "republished as XXXX in 2010". This was incorrect, it was simply the American name and not a re-naming. I also greatly dispute your suggestion that two-thirds of her readers are American. Hibbert is one of the "most-borrowed" authors from libraries in the UK - her popularity stretches from Europe to Australia, as evidenced by the recent serial re-publishing of her Plaidy works in the UK and Australia. America does not have any special ownership of her. "Thanks Paul75 (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)"

Paul, can you point me to somewhere in the Wiki Guidelines that says books should only be referred to by one title (original, best know, or whatever)? If there are guidelines on this then that should be our starting point, obviously.

If there are no stated guidelines, I think the title that comes first should be the title of the first edition, which in this case will presumably be the title of the UK edition in almost all cases. But I think it is very useful to add the US titles as well. It may well be a problem of this kind, whether x and y are the same book, that brings a reader to the page in the first place.

I think the questions of what bibliographical data to give and what mistakes in the bibliographical data need correcting should be treated separately. We all have a responsibility to keep data as accurate as possible.

Perhaps other editors would like to say something too. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If a work is published under a new title it seems appropriate to include that in the article. The reasoning is that someone could search the page (or Wikipedia) for the work under one of those titles and would be astonished that it's not listed. It also lets readers or collectors of the author's work know that there are two (or more) titles for the same work. At times I've accidentally bought two copies of a story as I was not aware the title had changed.

As for which title is first, generally first publication is a good clue. Sometimes a work is much better known under a later title and so I'd use that first and include a note such as "Published earlier as Other title." If a work was published simultaneously under two titles I'd do UK and then USA as Hibbert was a British author.

If you are looking for a guideline, then Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Parallel texts, alternative titles seems like it addresses this issue. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Marc. Very clear and precise. I'll give Paul a couple of days to respond and then revert his changes, I think, as the simplest way of not getting things in more of a muddle than they are already. Bmcln1 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Marc. However, simply reverting my edits will still not solve this situation. As I stated before, a previous editor had claimed that a Plaidy novel had been "republished as XXXX in 2010". This was incorrect, the title had not been re-published with a new name - the "new" name was simply the US edition. The novel had not undergone any name change in the UK or anywhere else in the world. What is needed is a table with one column having the British/ROW titles and one with the US title. As I understand, the majority of the Plaidy names had different names in the US, I think a table is the only sensible option. Paul75 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In spinning through the edit history and looking at Fantastic Fiction it does not seem like there are that many alternate titles. I could see using a table format if all, or nearly all, of the titles in a series were republished with new titles.

Regarding "republished as XXXX in 2010" - I think that's a matter of semantics. Some will call it republished, others will say "new edition", etc. While the article is using "aka" I'm not sure how well known that abbreviation is and believe it would be safer to use "also published as Alternate Title".

I don't think we need the republication dates as they seem to add little information to an article about Eleanor Hibbert.

Also, while we have discussed UK/USA editions on this page I do not believe we should use those words in the article. For example, at the bottom of Fantastic Fiction's page for Myself my Enemy you can see there are many UK and USA editions for the title Myself my Enemy and that only one publisher used Loyal in Love. Note that the (UK/USA edition) display on Fantastic Fiction is derived from the ISBN and is not a 100% reliable indicator in this age of publishing groups that publish in multiple countries and have many imprints. It's a good clue but don't use it as "proof" that a particular book is a UK, USA, or some other edition.

Happily, the Amazon USA page for Loyal in Love has a Look Inside for that edition and the title page says "Previously published as Myself My Enemy" meaning we have a reliable source that Loyal in Love is an alternative title for Myself My Enemy. Flip forward one page in that Look Inside and we learn that the publisher intends to reprint The Pleasures of Love as The Merry Monarch's Wife. That's not a perfectly reliable source because at the time of publication it was an expression of future intent but it's a clue.

With some diligence we should be able to chase down the alternate titles. and if you want to be 100% kosher about it we'd use citation's such as <ref>{{cite book|last=Plaidy|first=Jean|title=Loyal in Love|year=2007|publisher=Three Rivers Press|isbn=0307346161|pages=title|url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307346161|quote=Previously published as ''Myself My Enemy''}}</ref>.

I spun through the recent edits to the Hibbert Wikipedia article and extracted the alternate titles that were added/dropped to construct the list that's below. My thinking is that each of these should be researched and verified that we have the correct title and that they are the right pairings of alternate titles.

• Saint Thomas' Eve (1954) (republished as The King's Confidante in 2009)
• The Spanish Bridegroom (1954) (republished as For a Queen's Love in 2010)
• Gay Lord Robert (1955) (first by Eleanor Burford, republished as Lord Robert in 2007 and A Favorite of the Queen in 2010)
• The Pleasures of Love (1991) (aka The Merry Monarch's Wife)
• Myself My Enemy (1983) (aka Loyal in Love)
• William's Wife (1992) (aka The Queen's Devotion)
• Uneasy Lies the Head (1982) (republished as To Hold the Crown in 2008)
• The Loves of Charles II (omnibus of 2-4) (need to check if the title includes The Loves of)
• The Love Child, (1950) (later re-published under the Philippa Carr name)INCORRECT. 'THE LOVE CHILD' WRITTEN USING THE NAME 'PHILIPPA CARR' IS NOT THE SAME AS THIS ONE! (this comment needs research)
• Evil in the House (1953) aka Such Bitter Business (this is from http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/f/elbur-ford/)

While I recommended Fantastic Fiction, don't use it as gospel. For example, I see Murder Most Royal (1949) aka King's Pleasure. Searching Amazon UK and USA shows the title is The King's Pleasure and there also seems to be a 1972 omnibus of Murder Most Royal - The King's Pleasure - The King's Secret Matter - Happiest of Women - No Other Will Than His. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Marc. I still believe the method above is highly misleading and prone to problems. For example, listing a novel as Gay Lord Robert (1955) (first by Eleanor Burford, republished as Lord Robert in 2007 and A Favorite of the Queen in 2010) is not correct. The novel Gay Lord Robert was republished in 2007 as Lord Robert, end of story. It was published as A Favorite of the Queen in the USA. However it is still known as Lord Robert everywhere else in the world. If someone walks into a bookshop into the UK tomorrow looking for A Favorite of the Queen they will be sorely disappointed - it doesn't exist. More appropriate I think is something along the lines of Gay Lord Robert (1955) (first by Eleanor Burford, republished as Lord Robert in 2007 and in the USA as A Favorite of the Queen in 2010) . All titles are covered and it makes clear what is unique to the USA market. Paul75 (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see there is that Gay Lord Robert and Lord Robert were published and sold in both the UK and USA. It would be misleading to say that A Favorite of the Queen is the USA title and imply that Gay Lord Robert and Lord Robert were not sold in the USA. For example, G. P. Putnam's Son, New York, published Gay Lord Robert in 1971.

A single publisher has republished many Plaidy stories and for some of them this publisher used a different title. I thought about ways to show which title are available in the USA, which are UK only, USA only, etc. It was getting messy and so I decided to deal with it by adding a section to the article about that focuses on Three Rivers and ignore the mess. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point, however I think it is just as misleading to suggest that A Favorite of the Queen has been published and is available in the UK. To write that Gay Lord Robert was repulished in 2007 as Lord Robert, and republished again in 2010 as A Favorite of the Queen suggested that Lord Robert has now been superseded by A Favorite of the Queen - this is not correct. Paul75 (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A thought I had after adding the section about Three Rivers Press to the main article is that the following should not be misleading:

11.Gay Lord Robert (1955) (first by Eleanor Burford, republished as Lord Robert in 2007 and A Favorite of the Queen in 2010)

Someone using this list to hunt for the story in a book store should hopefully know to look for all three titles. Earlier I suggested the dates were not needed but here I could see it's useful because someone can see that a used book store is more likely to have Gay Lord Robert and that they should look in both the Eleanor Burford and Jean Plaidy sections of the store. Ideally, book store and library catalogs would have alternate title records that point to the record for the copies of the books they have in stock. I see my local public library has a copy of Gay Lord Robert but at present say "not found" for A Favorite of the Queen. A local bookstore is the opposite in that they have copies of A Favorite of the Queen in stock but "not found" for Gay Lord Robert. To add to the mess in this case is the author name sometimes changed.

I think was an error in the article which says Gay Lord Robert was published under the Eleanor Burford name. I can't find a copy of that. I scanned OCLC and found many Jean Plaidy editions and record 633124987 says it was published as by Victoria Holt. However, a scan of AbeBooks for "Lord Bobert" and "Pan Books" finds 24 listings with all of them listing Jean Plaidy as the author implying that OCLC record is a mistake. I updated the article to only have this under Jean Plaidy's section. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what you have done adding in the Three Rivers Press section works very well and incorporates the best of both world's without being messy. With this new section, is it perhaps unnecessary to have A Favorite of the Queen listed next to Gay Lord Robert in the main section? Seems repititious. Paul75 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I was experimenting with both formats. I had taken another look saw that Gay Lord Robert is out of print in both the UK and USA and so the main list should include the current titles rather than hiding that information in another list and assuming people will notice and then mentally update the original list. Your "rest of the world" comment for Lord Robert is not correct. For example, you can't get that title at all in Canada and China while A Favorite of the Queen is available in those countries. Both titles are available in Germany, France, and Japan. The UK is sticky. Both titles are available on www.amazon.co.uk but W H Smith, Waterstones, and Tesco only carry Lord Robert. Anyone who wants to read that story should look for all three titles to see what's available.

Thus I think it's a mistake to say one edition or another is UK, USA, etc. unless a publisher announces it's only making a title available in a specific market. Sometimes someone will announce they have Commonwealth publishing rights though in the publishing world that usually means Canada is not included. If you really want to have fun, dig into the rights splits for eBook editions.

I'm not sure what to do with the Three Rivers Press section I added. It's a great example of continued interest in this author but as you noted, it's repetitious. At present I'm leaning towards putting the alternate titles in the main list, removing the Three Rivers list, moving Three Rivers section into the main article, and expanding it to include data on the size of the print runs. One benefit of the Three Rivers list is that we could expand it to have all of the Three Rivers titles and it can thus show that the publisher has continued to publish Plaidy titles for at least eight years (2003 through at least 2011). --Marc Kupper|talk 08:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting comment on the Amazon page for A Favorite of the Queen :

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful: 3.0 out of 5 stars be careful, 2 Nov 2010 By Vickim - See all my reviews

This review is from: A Favorite of the Queen: The Story of Lord Robert Dudley and Elizabeth I (Novel of the Tudors) (Paperback)

I bought this book not realising that it was just the book Lord Robert with a new name which I already own. Disappointing. Its not obvious that that is what it is and as Plaidy has written several books on the same topic, I did think that it was a different book. Its not so dont make the same mistake that I did.

There needs to be some distinction that A Favorite of the Queen, along with all the other Three Rivers edition, is the US publisher's name for the book, and that they are sold complementary to the other titles, not as a replacement. Amazon is not an accurate guide to what is available in what country - as international conglomerate they can access any book from anywhere in the world and sell it in any country in the world. I found no evidence of A Favorite of the Queen being available locally in France or Canada, although my search wasn't exhaustive. According to Canada's Chapters Indigo bookshop, Plaidy's work are published under their original name - William's Wife, Myself My Enemy etc - and not the Three Rivers Press editions. I think the least confusing version for every side is to have a separate Three Rivers Press editions table as is in the article now. Paul75 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My main objection to the Three Rivers Press table are 1) Someone looking at the main list of titles will not be aware that some of those stories have been reprinted under new titles and 2) This does not address the Lord Robert title. Are you proposing that we construct a separate tables each publisher that used alternate titles for any story?

I think the following wording will handle the issue of alternate titles, while giving a hint of the countries involved, and also addresses your concern about these being complementary to the other titles and not replacements:

11. Gay Lord Robert (1955) (reprinted as Lord Robert by Arrow Books(UK) in 2007 and as A Favorite of the Queen by Three Rivers Press(USA) in 2010)

If you want get a laugh out of this, both Arrow Books and Three Rivers Press are owned by Random House which was an American company and is now a division of a German company.

In this case we have the unfortunate situation in that two divisions of the same company each chose to invent a new title for an existing work. One is headquartered in the USA, and the other is in the UK. Both divisions sell globally in as many markets that they have rights to. In some countries both editions are available, some countries only have one of the two, and in a few you can't get either title except via the used book market.

Note that your statement about Amazon is not accurate. Publishers get rights to offer their products in various countries. If a publisher does not have rights to France then you will not see Amazon.fr offering new copies out of their own stock. You may see secondary market (used) copies. Note that some secondary market sellers offer unread copies which they call "new." While Amazon is not a 100% reliable source for determining the rights splits it can provide very useful clues.

As these are English language works you are unlikely to find new copies of any of the three titles in a local book store in France meaning someone interested in that story will likely use Amazon.fr. They will be pleased to learn that new, in-stock, copies of both Lord Robert and A Favorite of the Queen are available. Gay Lord Robert is out of print.

I took a look and no publisher seems to have English language print rights for Jean Plaidy stories in Canada. Publishers have audio-book rights and one publisher has Canadian rights for the Spanish language edition for the "The Isabella and Ferdinand Trilogy" trilogy. ISIS (www.isis-publishing.co.uk) is a UK publisher that normally does audio-book editions but apparently is allowed to publish some large-print English language editions. They have offered six English language large-print Jean Plaidy titles in Canada over the years though at the moment all of them are out of print except for one that may be in-print but is out of stock. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think your example 11. Gay Lord Robert (1955) (reprinted as Lord Robert by Arrow Books(UK) in 2007 and as A Favorite of the Queen by Three Rivers Press(USA) in 2010) is probably the best solution here. 'Gay Lord Robert' does seem to be the only novel so far that has had the title changed upon republishing in the UK and the USA, so it quite unique in Hibbert's body of work. Paul75 (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Identity of secondary (reprinted) book titles

I seriously doubt that 'Royal Sisters' is an alterrnative title for 'Daughters of Spain' from the Isabelle & Ferdinand series as indicated now. I have an electronic version of 'Royal Sisters' in front of me and it states 'Originally published in hardcover in slightly different form as 'The Haunted Sisters' in Great Britain ...' which would make it part of the Stuart series. Can anyone confirm this? 11:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.234.0 (talk)

Non-free images

There's currently a dispute on whether various non-free images satisfy the non-free content criteria. In particular:

• Images of Hibbert used by publishers for her various pseudonyms, meant to illustrate the different branding of those pseudonyms:
  • File:Eleanor-hibbert-as-jean-plaidy-1940s.jpg [1] (without the frame)
  • File:Eleanor-hibbert-as-eleanor-burford-1930s.jpg [2]
  • File:Eleanor-hibbert-as-victoria-holt-1975.jpg [3]
• An image of Hibbert and her typewriter on a cruise ship, meant to illustrate her untiring dedication to writing that wouldn't even stop on a voyage: File:Eleanor-hibbert-at-typewriter-on-cruise-ship-1970.png [4] (clipping from the newspaper)
• An image of a "Author of the month" ad: File:Victoria Holt - Author of the Month Feb 1979 - Publix.jpg [5] (clipping from the newspaper)

Personally I see a valid rationale for some of the "pseudonym" images once content to that effect has been added to the article. For the others I don't think they improve our readers' understanding enough to necessitate a non-free image. I may change my opinion when R0x5r provides a more detailed rationale. Huon (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eleanor Hibbert. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.irenegoodman.com/2005_11_01_archive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eleanor Hibbert. 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/20140419015539/https://suite.io/carolyn-m-cash/2zrs26e to https://suite.io/carolyn-m-cash/2zrs26e
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/8078/holt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Fotheringhay" or ""Fotheringay"?

Which spelling should be used in the title of "Royal Road to Fothering(h)ay"? ""Fotheringay" seems to have been used in the original work, but at least one modern edition uses "Fotheringhay". Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)