Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Restoring earlier version

See also: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive2

We had a very good article in place here, much of it written by Wadewitz and almost ready for FA. It needed a "style and themes" section, a brief overview of the novels, then the usual prep work. Instead we've had deterioration, especially since Fountains-of-Paris began the major changes. I've listed some of the problems at User:SlimVirgin/JA. I suggest we restore the revision before 16 March, when Fountains first changed the lead. Any good edits after that can easily be retrieved.

Fountains has copied text from other articles, which messed up the citations and led others to add citation templates over objections. He has inserted a very poor lead; copied material from Reception history of Jane Austen and called it a "themes" section, when in fact it's just a second reception section; and created a "novels" section by copying text, unchecked, from Wikipedia articles about the novels, articles edited by many editors and IP addresses. After copying the text over, he submitted it to FAC for the second time.

I've made only spot checks, but the text I checked in the "novels" section originates from edits to other articles in 2002–2006. The content may be fine, but it's unsourced or poorly sourced, and one sentence is plagiarized (see User:SlimVirgin/JA, point 11). Victoria removed the worst of the problems on 22 August. Fountains reverted and immediately requested 30 days' full protection, then posted an RfC about the citation style, which misses the point.

Pinging Iridescent and Ritchie333, who replied to the RfPP, and Laser brain, Ian Rose and Brianboulton because of the FA issues. This is a case where Brian's new mentorship scheme might have helped. SarahSV (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've now fixed the last few short notes that didn't point to any long cite. It still needs some of the long cites of collections unpacking into separate cites so that the author can be attributed, but that's a minor issue. I've also demonstrated at Special:Permalink/736061849 how we could have the long citations display in MLA format as Adrienne wished. At least there's now a reference point where all of the referenced text is clearly linked to the source that supports it. Pinging Jonesey95 and Izno to see if they concur that inconsistencies have been sorted out. We should, of course, inform the 33 editors who edited the article since 16 March 2016, whose contributions will be wiped out. Will you ping them or shall I? I'm not sure of the etiquette, but perhaps the reviewers at GA and both FACs ought to be consulted as well? --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I have already said everything that I want to say on this topic. Do a find on my user name on this page if you want to read my views on any of the topics under discussion here. Thanks for the ping. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I wasn't anticipating a literal revert to the March version. There may have been legitimate improvements made to the prose and sourcing since then. I would vote for reinstating the previous lead and removing the "Novels" and "Themes" sections from the current article, since these are of little benefit to the reader. I agree with you about a style and themes section, condensed from the excellent article Styles and themes of Jane Austen, but I don't find a separate section on the novels to be the best approach: instead, outlines of the plot and writing history would be better placed within the biography (where such information is currently sparse). Can I also repeat what I stated at the FAC review: "There's also no Legacy section, and I don't see all the "reception" stuff as a replacement for that. There should be a more general summary of her legacy and impact." This would be ideal for someone of Austen's eminence, in my view, and I imagine it would interest readers. --92.5.94.147 (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
On the whole I now agree with SarahSV that a reversion, with checking what has happened since, is probably best. It's a pain either way, but this is probably easiest. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm with SarahSV and Johnbod. There's been too much text copied in, too many things have now been moved around, it's not possible to edit the article in its current state - except for those people who are still fiddling with templates, but adding templates is not the solution to the problem at this time. It will be a pain, but it has be done. Probably sooner rather than later so we can start work on the sections that need to be written and so we can start checking the text against the sources (sadly, I think someone will have to do that in order to be able to respond to queries and at least one person has to become completely immersed in the sources. I'll probably do it, but it's a many month's long job). Victoria (tk) 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod and Victoriaearle: and 92.5.94.147, I've prepared a draft version at User:SlimVirgin/JA/draft. This is copied from 16 March 2016. I've copy-edited, moved some images, rmvd some non-RS and the text they supported, extended the infobox, changed the notes system to {{efn}}, and added some text from the current version.
I've tried to make the short cites for essays clearer, along the lines of the complaints on this page. The style was, on first reference: Author, "Essay title", Collection title, page number, and thereafter: Author, "Essay title", page number. Now it's Author, "Essay title", in Editor-year, page number, so: Kirkham, "Portraits", in Todd 2005, 69–72. This is a temporary measure until a decision is made about style.
I would normally insert this, but I don't know what to do now. Anyone planning to take the article forward should feel free to insert it, ignore it, use some of it, change any part of it, or insert a different version.
I've outlined some of the issues at User:SlimVirgin/JA, including what would need to happen to get this to FAC (not something I'd want to try to do). SarahSV (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
If we would be allowed to restore to User:SlimVirgin/JA/draft it would nice. Once that's in place we could start by sorting out the sourcing something along the lines as posted in the example at User talk:Victoriaearle/sandbox. It's only the first two paragraphs of the first section and there's a fair amount of work to be done. For instance Greene and Tucker are still lacking first names, but now we know where to find them. Also I'd suggest simply alphabetizing the sources and removing the "Primary", "Secondary" designations, etc., which in my view tends to add some confusion and without them it's much easier to scan for surnames. Victoria (tk) 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree about removing those headings; in fact I may do that now. And I like your sandbox source style. SarahSV (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
From both of your earlier comments I am not sure you found the two additional references from the Cambridge University Companion series dealing with collections of essays about two of Austen's novels here [1] and here [2]. These are not referrals to the text of the individual novels. They are a collection of essays about the style and themes covered in those novels. Given your retractions on my Talk page here [3], it is being assumed that you both understand that the current version of the article has received positive review and development from Bishonen, J Milburn, and Miniapolis for GOCE after my edits were made. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Did those three editors know that you had shamelessly pasted chunks of material from other articles? That you didn't write anything in the "Themes" section you added? You should have been clear about that before they wasted their time, because of course someone was going to notice and request that it be reverted. I wish I had realised, then I would have been more firm about removing the sections and possibly reached out for further input. You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that those editors were positive about your changes. Josh_Milburn comments are here [4] and here [5], where he said 1) "I'm not convinced that this section quite plugs the hole that was raised at GAC and FAC. In particular, the unsourced/undersourced analysis and the lack of discussion of overall themes seems to be problematic for FAC purposes"; 2) "The historical approach is a little surprising to me; I'm certainly not an expert in literary criticism/literary theory, but (thinking aloud, now) I wonder if it has more of a story-telling quality than an analysis quality. The rise and fall of her favour among literary "elites" on the one hand and the general public on the other is certainly interesting, but it's not really about her themes." He voiced the same concerns as us and I see nothing explicitly positive or encouraging. I do not see any comments from Miniapolis - s/he dutifully copy-edited the content as I presume you requested, but there's no indication of their thoughts. Bishonen's only input was to complain about a sentence in the lead. Yes, s/he prefaced this by saying "You're doing great work", but this was before you added the bizarre themes section....which I'm more confused about than ever, by the way, now that I've realised that it is completely copied from the reception article (I only did a close comparison today). What compelled you to do that? It's already poor form to plagarise someone else's work (and yes, I do consider it plagarism) but even if you legitimately thought that was okay, why was it from that article? You were asked to add content about Austen's style and themes. The question now is - did you start working on the article because you genuinely want it to be of a high standard? Because if that's the case, you should listen to the multiple users who have said it needs reverting and learn from this incident. However, unfortunately I have a feeling that you are mostly glory hunting, as I notice from your profile that you are now crediting yourself to the Reception article FA. The revision history of that article shows that your additions constitute about 200 words, so including it on your profile is misleading. Quite frankly, I consider this somewhat disrespectful to the real author of that article, who I gather has passed away, and I can't help but question your motives for editing here. Please prove me wrong. --92.2.40.255 (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't actually think there is anything wrong per se in copying large chunks, when properly attributed. But here it was, as you & others have said, not what people had been asking for, it duplicated the existing reception section, and it was unduly long for this main article. I agree with much else you say. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Break

IP editor appears to be editing from a wide range of IP accounts which change frequently and over several months for what appear to be single purpose accounts set to foment opposing views on an already tepid Talk page. Although Wikipedia editors are allowed to edit from IP-accounts, it is also noted that using multiple IP accounts to do so creates the impression that several different editors are editing in the "appearance" of a consensus of opinion opposing edits on this Talk page. The IP accounts in evidence for this are over the past months very consistent as to a nearly identical opposing viewpoint: 92.2.40.255, 92.5.94.147, 80.43.182.105, 80.43.187.189, 80.43.205.25, etc. It is important for me to at least ask if you are a single editor using these multiple accounts for a single purpose. Also, I will suggest that although editors may edit from IP accounts that if you have a regular account then this might be a good time for you to sign in as a regular editors so that others may communicate with you more conveniently and more directly. Given these odd circumstances of your apparently using multiple accounts for a single purpose, I am temporarily hatting your long repetitive commentary of 3000 characters above until your direct response. I shall also notify your Talk page if you prefer to answer there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
FoP, I've removed your hatting of the IP's comment. The person editing logged out has made clear at each point that they're the same person, so it isn't a problem. SarahSV (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That's part of the issue, that the IP from multiple accounts is not always self-identifying and that they are using multiple accounts at the same time. By now everyone knows that you are Opposed to the current RfC with this IP, though the IP now is highly repetitive as many others editors have pointed out many times. There have been a large number of repetitive edits coming from this single editor apparently using multiple IP accounts for single purpose opposition and personal attacks/accusations against my account. The large number of IP accounts being used is starting to raise the issue of why an obviously experienced editor like this IP, is almost going out of their way not to sign in in the normal way. Is this at the level of needing further investigation? I have no difficulty with the both of you being opposed to the RfC, though I am requesting that the repetitive personal attacks/criticism be monitored and checked. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The IP editor is not doing anything inappropriate or repetitive, so please drop that angle (and others have not pointed anything out in that regard, as you allege). One thing that puzzles me: you stated in your FAC 2 nomination that you had an October deadline because of the publication in that month of the final book of the Harvard series. Did you mean that you wanted to get this article on the main page for that date? SarahSV (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The repetitive question of the IP has been asked and answered many times, here is RexxS's concise answer: "In response to 92.5.94.147, Tim riley conducted the GA review and is a well-respected editor and reviewer with 36 FAs to his name. If you have any criticisms of his GA review, then I suggest you take them up with him. He passed the article as a GA with the updated lead and rolling back the lead to one that was identified as unsatisfactory could in no way be considered an improvement to the article. That shows a complete lack of respect for the reviewer, the copy-editor and the editor who has worked hard for the last six months to improve this article from the state it had languished in since 2013." Regarding the October date you ask about, Harvard University is publishing its sixth and final volume of its complete annotated Austen collection in October if all is on time with them; that date should have no particular influence on the in-process development of the Austen article here. My understanding previously was that you were extending an olive branch earlier in the discussion to move the future improvement of the Austen article forward by writing a new version of one or two of the sections using your own preferred sources (with your edit friends) and you can let us know if or when its ready. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have been editing from the exact same computer in the exact same house since I first commented at the FAC review (and long before that). My IP address changes regularly anyway, beyond my control, but I have always made it clear I am the same person. I've also been honest that I had an account in the past and no longer like to edit that way - that is my prerogative and I don't need to explain why (though I certainly have my reasons, including being only an occasional editor now). It's rather rich to accuse me of being repetitive when almost all you have said on this talk page is "X, X, and X for GOCE have contributed to the enhancement of the article", while ignoring the key issues and refusing to explain your strange editing decisions. You even ignored my point about those editors showing little enthusiasm. Now you are trying to move the spotlight onto me in an obvious evasive technique. Using the GA review as a rebuttal/excuse certainly doesn't fly, when that was simply one editor's view, it was before you pasted inappropriate content, and many others have complained since. It's obvious that you don't want to take me seriously because I'm "just an IP editor", but that's not going to stop me having a say. I'm a fan of Jane Austen and want her to have a solid, useful article. Anyway - it seems that you're now prepared for the section(s) on literary analysis to be re-written, which is pleasing. I'm happy to sit back and wait for the results of that. SarahSV, thank you for your supportive comments. --92.2.40.255 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
There is an understanding among Wikipedia editors with regular accounts that occasionally they might forget to sign in and use their IP for editing, or that they might be in odd places where they do not want to sign in but would like to make edits from a convenient IP account. Its recognized that this happens and Wikipedia allows regular editors to edit from IP accounts in such cases. You appear to be saying that there is a problem with your regular account which you have just mentioned directly above which keeps you from using your regular account even though you say you have a regular account. If you like you can use this chance to tell us what difficulties you are having with your account and maybe one of the many experienced editors here could help you to sort it out. In no way should you give any personal information you do not want to give out, and no one is asking you for any such personal information of any kind whatsoever. You have just stated that you "no longer like to edit that way" and if this is because of problems associated with your regular account then mentioning them here might gain help for you from the many experienced editors presently on this Talk page. In no way do you need to provide any personal details which you do not wish to share, this is only to help you with the problems which you have indicated are keeping you from using your regular account even though you say that you have one. This way it will be easier to put you in touch with the several editors already mentioned to you that could provide you with answers to the questions which you keep repeating on this Talk page over and over again to RexxS and myself, and others as well. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Drop this angle. If someone wants to edit as an IP, it's none of our business. The only thing we ask is that people don't act as if they're more than one contributor. In this case it's obvious that the IP editor is the same person, despite the changing IP addresses. Please focus instead on the content issues that several people have raised. SarahSV (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to help the IP off-page then please take this matter up off-page with the IP who is using this Talk page to indicate their having problems with their regular account. I am in agreement with RexxS that the IP is repetitive and not making any follow-up at all with any editors who are available to answer the questions being asked by the IP over and over again. As both you and the IP are OPPOSED to the current RfC, this does not mean that the IP can keep asking the same questions over and over again. You and the IP may contact Tim riley, Bishonen, J Milburn, and Miniapolis on their Talk pages if you or the IP have any questions about their edits. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh please, it is you who should be addressing the concerns since you added the content; stop trying to direct it to those other editors. But if you're so confident that they support your version of the article, why have you not reached out to them for input? It's making me laugh that you call me repetitive when you just wrote a dozen [very patronising] lines saying the same thing about three times over. All you needed to write was "Is there a problem with your regular account? Perhaps there's someone here who can help you." Since you're so interested, I haven't logged into my "regular account" in at least 5 years. There's nothing wrong with it, I just prefer to remain anonymous (as is my right). Why does this bother you? It's because you want to know about my editing history, isn't it, so that you can make a judgement on my worth. Interesting, that's exactly one of the reason I am against wikipedia having registered accounts: people's input is not considered equal because they are always being measured against their "experience". I've seen such rhetoric several times during this discussion alone. It's bogus and I refuse to play along. Anyway, we are getting away from the issue at hand. --92.2.40.255 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Matter at hand

Returning to the matter at hand: do we revert to an earlier version, specifically to User:SlimVirgin/JA/draft? That version does not include the material copied from elsewhere on 13 April without an attribution and labeled a novels sections, nor does it include the material copied from elsewhere on 19 April without an attribution and labeled a themes section. The article will need a "Themes" section and a "Style" section but those have to be researched and written from scratch. Typically we do not include novels sections in the biography of a major writer; instead they are developed as individual articles, complete with a "Themes" and "Style" section for that piece of writing. Here we need to cover Austen's complete canon. For the sake of brevity I won't at this moment mention the sheer number of sources involved, but I will note that when Fountains-of-Paris mentions preferred sources they are a little off track. Sources cannot be cherry picked; a full source review is required and currently underway. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive2 saw comments from the very same reviewers who are commenting here, now, at this thread. I am in favor of a reversion for more reasons that can possibly be stated here.

A few matters not at hand. In reply to Fountains-of-Paris post here: no, there is no retraction and I'm sorry you read it that way. I will go fix that post immediately. I made a simple apology for the tone in this post, though I stand by its substance. In terms of who has made positive comments - it's not really relevant to the matter at hand and, in my view, it would be courteous to ping them all properly to the discussion and give them a chance to weigh in if they wish. As for the IP - he/she has every right to comment as an IP. Nothing else needs to be said in that regard. Victoria (tk) 19:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It feels as though the page is being held hostage, so I've restored the text as described above. Apologies for the messed-up edit summary: I saved early by mistake. It's mostly from 16 March 2016 before FoP first removed text from the lead. I also copied bits from 15 October 2013 and 25 August 2016, then did some copy-editing, ref fixing and image sorting, including adding the portrait of Austen from the back.
If the RfC results in consensus to add templates, we can easily copy them in (though we should preserve the bundling, in my view). If no one else wants to do that work, I'm willing to do it myself. If not, we can make sure the current refs are consistent (they seem to be) and add years per Victoria's sandbox.
Anyone can continue to add text from the current version as applicable (except for the copy-pasted sections), though I'd caution against the "Guardian announced that ITV would do such-and-such" approach. It would be better to reflect the scholarship than to go into detail about the films. What it needs now is a styles and themes section, one that summarizes Styles and themes of Jane Austen if appropriate. I'm not in a position to write that, so it's over to those who can. SarahSV (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Also meant to note that I've removed the section on the Harvard Austen series, because it's not clear why there was a section devoted to one publisher. But if there was a good reason, please restore. SarahSV (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Break 2

There is NO CONSENSUS on the Talk page for any of these edits to the main body by these 4 users. All editors must follow the Open RFC to the letter until it ends. 2nd RFPP rq with admin watchlist. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement whatsoever to stop editing parts of the article unrelated to the running RFC. I have restored the changes which clearly have nothing to do with the RFC. --Mirokado (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mirokado: Sarah's changes have nothing to do with the RFC either, and should be restored. I would say there is a strong case made for those edits in this section, with only Fountains-of-Paris objecting and continuing to throw fits here, at RFPP, and elsewhere because they aren't getting their way. This isn't how we are supposed to operate. --Laser brain (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I just restored the most clearly unrelated changes. As far as the other changes are concerned, I did think "Ooh, I wouldn't have done that yet!" so I will leave it to others to decide about them. My recommendation is to leave the citation and callout formats alone until the RFC closes, if only so that all comments relate to the same version of the affected material. --Mirokado (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, the portions which reflect the @Tim riley: edits need to be preserved, as well as the other participating editors previously mentioned and including J Milburn. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the section about the collected edition. Mentioning only one edition currently being published, it was clearly too promotional and contained the unattributed description "authoritative". Some (properly sourced) discussion about notable collected editions (the first, the first with additional commentary, others with significant coverage in independent reviews, ...) would be a useful addition to coverage of the evolution of appreciation of the oeuvre. --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Mirokado, your edit summary said the above was a reply to me. You re-removed the critical edition section (thank you), but your first edit summary said "back to Pppery," which looked as though you (rather than FoP) reverted my other edits. That's what any admin glancing at this will see, so that's unfortunate. SarahSV (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the edit summaries are sufficiently clear: "Reverted to revision 736723488 by Pppery (talk): Restore changes not related to the runnning RFC, I will leave squabbling about the rest to others" and "restore change not related to running RFC" (one could of course argue that "squabbling" is not entirely tactful!) The first restored changes by other editors, the second one of your changes. The mention of Pppery was automatically added to the user-specified edit summary by the "restore version" function in the diff view, perhaps part of Twinkle. --Mirokado (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Your suggestion about that section I think is very good. The Harvard critical edition can have both the Norton critical edition cited next to it, along with the Cambridge critical edition as well which is quite good. My other suggestion would be not to include other "collections" but only the "critical" or "annotated" collections, since they are markedly different. There are dozens of collections of Austen's novel, inexpensive and expensive, and only the critical collections should be in that section. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The RfC above only talks about the citation style - it does not address the issues with pasted content, and content was the substance of Sarah's change. It should be allowed. If we need to leave the citations for now, then can't someone just remove the problematic sections and change the lead (without doing a revert)? That way the citations will stay the same until the issue (which is far from the most pressing) is sorted. Fountains is the only person I can see resisting a removal of the content. S/he is trying to use other editors as a defence, but none of them have actually stated an opinion so that is meaningless at the moment. --88.104.161.100 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

88.104.161.100, I believe that's what Victoria did (rmv the two sections and restore the lead), and FoP reverted that too. The difficulty with only moving the problem sections and restoring the lead is that it leaves inconsistent citation styles in place, and templates for which there's no consensus. That's why I went back to an earlier version and started to build up from there; it's cleaner to do it that way. Then, if the RfC produces consensus for templates, they can be copied back in. But if there's a preference for only removing those sections and fixing the lead, I'll go along with that too. SarahSV (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi 88.104.161.100 (of course you might have switched again), but anyway: yes I tried on August 21st as a compromise. See talk page comments on August 22nd for reaction (actually I was called away from the computer and have only read edit summaries from that period); the article history for August 22 also shows the reaction. After looking closely at the templated refs, I'm convinced we need to revert farther. Currently we're lacking names (i.e, first/name, last/name) for authors and also titles. If Sarah's version could be left in place then I'd reformat as in the example below and from there, if required per the RFC, it's a small step back to templates.
Example

Family

Silhouette of Cassandra Austen, Jane's sister and closest friend

Austen's parents, George Austen (1731–1805), and his wife, Cassandra (1739–1827), were members of substantial gentry families.[1] George was descended from a family of woollen manufacturers, which had risen through the professions to the lower ranks of the landed gentry.[2] Cassandra was a member of the prominent Leigh family. The couple married on 26 April 1764 at Walcot Church in Bath.[3] From 1765 until 1801, that is, for much of Jane's life, George Austen served as the rector of the Anglican parishes at Steventon, Hampshire, and a nearby village. From 1773 until 1796, he supplemented this income by farming and by teaching three or four boys at a time, who boarded at his home.[4][a]

Austen's immediate family was large: six brothers—James (1765–1819), George (1766–1838), Edward (1768–1852), Henry Thomas (1771–1850), Francis William (Frank) (1774–1865), Charles John (1779–1852)—and one sister, Cassandra Elizabeth (1773–1845), who, like Jane, died unmarried. Cassandra was Austen's closest friend and confidante throughout her life.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Irene Collins estimates that when George Austen took up his duties as rector in 1764, Steventon comprised no more than about thirty families.[5]

References

  1. ^ Honan (1987), 29–30.
  2. ^ Honan (1987), 11–14; Tucker (1986), 143.
  3. ^ Tomalin (1987), 6, 13–16, 147–151, 170–171; Greene (1963), 156–157; Fergus (2005), 5–6; Collins (1994), 10–11.
  4. ^ Honan (1987), 14, 17–18; Collins (1994), 54.
  5. ^ Collins (1994), 86.
  6. ^ Fergus (2005), 3; Tomalin (1987), 142; Honan (1987), 23, 119.

Sources

  • Collins, Irene. Jane Austen and the Clergy. London: The Hambledon Press, 1994. ISBN 1-85285-114-7.
  • Fergus, Jan. "Biography". Jane Austen in Context, edited by Janet Todd, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-521-82644-6.
  • Greene, Somebody, "Jane Austen and the Peerage". Jane Austen: A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by Ian Watt, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963. ISBN 978-0-13-053769-0.
  • Honan, Park. Jane Austen: A Life. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987. ISBN 0-312-01451-1.
  • Tomalin, Claire. Jane Austen: A Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997. ISBN 0-679-44628-1.
  • Tucker, Somebody. "Jane Austen's Family". The Jane Austen Companion, edited by David Grey, New York: Macmillan, 1986. ISBN 0-02-545540-0.

P.s, it's ok to delete this example; it's currently stashed here. Victoria (tk) 00:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Break 3

I've reverted again because the more I look at the version that went to FAC the more issues I find. I.e there were sections referenced to an online discussion group, the section about slavery is undue, (Said's criticism isn't mainstream), and on and on. I need to go offline again, but it really makes more sense to leave it like this. For a moment I thought I could compromise and work by copying in the original version and then reverting back to the FAC version, but there's no deadline for any of this, it's too difficult to keep multiple versions synched, so I've decided to keep the version without the copied material and build up from there. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Victoria. Thank you for your efforts today! It seems (as others have already recognised) clear that there were too many other problems with the version with updated citations to work with it as I had previously suggested, so I am now happy to support your recent changes. We must remember that readers need to refer to the article even while we are discussing content or style issues and always try to provide reliably sourced etc content. The work on changed citations is not lost, they can be restored from the article history and brought to acceptable quality if the RFC so decides. --Mirokado (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mirokado, I'll try to get through it as quickly as possible - i.,e adding years to the short cites, which in my view is a useful way to go anyway - but I ran into a few issues when I tried to identify a few essays in collections using g-books and decided it's best to have them all at hand, so I put in another order today. In the meantime, I'll chip away at it. Victoria (tk) 23:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Victoria, thanks for your edits; they look good. Don't feel you need to rush, and if you want help with the dates, let me know. SarahSV (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I've stopped at "K". From now on it'll be a slow slog. Basically the sources there were a reading list so I'm putting the ones not being used into the "Further reading" section. I'll have to figure out pagination for Copeland and McMasters because my edition is 2014 and slightly different - I'll probably convert to what I have at hand - then I want to make separate a long ref for each chapter used, leading with the author. We need to do the same with Todd (the table of contents for that book is available online) and Grey, which I can't see and have ordered. Once all that's done, we start reading and with the daunting amount of scholarship for Austen I expect that to take quite a bit of time. Then we build on what's here by adding the sections that are missing. Victoria (tk) 23:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Victoria, here are two unused long refs that I removed on 1 September, in case you want to add them to FR:

  • Devlin, D. D. Jane Austen and Education. London: Macmillan, 1975. ISBN 0-333-14431-7.
  • Duckworth, Alistair M. The Improvement of the Estate: A Study of Jane Austen's Novels. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971. ISBN 0-8018-1269-0.

SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to decide what we should be doing with that list; it's quite long. I thought about blanking it, because it's in history, but I think we need to sort through those titles, and the two above, and use some of them so that it's comprehensive. Another biography or two or three should also be used. Still thinking it through. Victoria (tk) 11:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
If you look at the last version I edited and you have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed in your Special:MyPage/skin.js file, you can see "Harv warning" errors on the sources that are not connected to short citation templates. That does not work in the current revision of the article, for reasons that many editors on this talk page have explained repeatedly.
P.S. The citations need a ton of work to get back to where they were in the version linked above. I hope someone is willing to do it. "Le Faye (2005)" with no link or disambiguator? No way to tell which full citation is meant. "Le Faye (2014)" with no matching full citation? Sigh. I feel a bit sad for readers trying to verify the current version of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The work I started isn't finished. I'm still waiting for The Jane Austen Companion to arrive via interlibrary loan so we can sort out the essays from that book. At the moment the first names are missing. Thanks for pointing out the error with Le Faye from Copeland. I'm working from the 2014 edition - the contents have not changed but the page numbers have, so that would have had to sorted regardless (I did check current page numbers against the text). The two Litz essays compiled in Todd 2005 do will need an additional qualifier. Other work included weeding out sources currently not used and moving to the "Further reading" section. And, with the books I now have at hand, I've gone through all the text and verified source/text integrity throughout. One thing that became abundantly clear during that process is that the bundling must stay in place - the way this article was written and how the sources were used is very impressive and shouldn't be changed, imo. If the RfC shows consensus for templates, then current short cites can easily be converted to Template:Sfnp and we have the formatted long cites in history. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Genres and categories

Now that you two have taken sole authorship on all pertaining to Jane Austen, her novels, reception history and so on, you may as well take note of the categories at the bottom of the novel pages, where other editors have boldly asserted categories not matching your notions and sources of ultimate authority, and not sourced, of course. The novels are variously categorized as bildungsroman, satirical, about nobility, love story, comedy. Your sole authorship is noticed by instant reverts of anything by anyone else in any of the articles. You revert all in an edit not just the part you say you do not like. If a person must rewrite all the articles in Wikipedia to name a genre for a novel as suggested in the deleted text, (would you allow the genre novel?) I do give up. It is always a revert, never an effort to work with the other editor in any way. Count me driven out, when I was willing to do work that you two are not very skilled at doing. I will not ping you, as you will not read what I post anyway (fact, I am sorry to say). Sorry for my frustrated tone mixed with the straight facts, but I was pinged and then the text was deleted, and I had to hunt why I was pinged, rather a waste of my time when I had already seen my small efforts reverted. It is more fun and more practical to edit with people who allow that another editor might have a useful contribution on a topic before you two finish all your writing, which will have to be cast in stone, no? Wikipedia:Remember the reader --Prairieplant (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Prairieplant will you please supply diffs for these assertions. As far as I can remember I made a change here because the text, as written, was in direct contradiction to the source, and here where the field was being used, but according to the documentation for Template:Infobox book those fields (preceded by and followed by) are only meant for books in a series. These are standalone novels; they are not books in a series. Here I removed information that was uncited. In retrospect I could have put it in a hidden comment or tagged it, but I dislike tagging Featured articles, and I'm not sure that information should be in that article anyway when we have the Jane Austen in popular culture for these entries. I did post in regards to genres last night and I did remove my post here - there hadn't been any response yet so it's allowed and I wanted to think about it some more and planned to re-add it at a later time. Once library books arrive from interlibrary loan (that always takes some time) and the reading is being done (that takes even longer), then there will be more activity here. In the meantime, no, it's not worth writing a genre section without following what the sources tell us. That takes time. It's just how it is. I did contact you on your page and explained that I was busy for a period (that was a month ago) and frankly no editor needs to make excuses, or have to defend themself, about why or why not, or when or when not, they are available for a volunteer activity. We all have talk pages and if you have issues with individual editors, I suggest you take it up there. Victoria (tk) 03:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Borrowed text into Mansfield Park from Jane Austen#Published author, citation problems

A couple of sentences with four short references in the section Jane Austen#Published author were moved (and noted on talk page) into Mansfield Park, as the sentences described the initial response to the novel, which was skipped in the article on that novel (but partly in the lead, so article text is needed). One citation in the list of short cites has nothing matching it in the long citations; it is left out with a comment in the text in Mansfield Park article and on the talk page. If it is found in the future, it can be added, but there are other sources. More confusing is another citation in the list of four, the Sutherland citation, short and in the Sources list (long). The entry in the Sources list has the ISBN for a different book, which indeed has a section by Sutherland. Oh I see, the book title has been changed, but not the article title since I copied the text and sources. ISBN 0-521-82644-6 matches Sutherland, Chronology of composition, in Jane Austen in Context, editor Todd, Janet 2005 -- not the article title in the citation in Sources for this article on Jane Austen. There is an essay in that book called Critical responses, early by Mary Waldron starting on page 178. Is Waldron or Sutherland wanted? Perhaps this will help with the citation work on this article. When it is cleared up, I or another editor can correct it in Mansfield Park#Literary reception, first paragraph, second reference of three, where it is flagged as needing Full citation, because section title & author do not match the ISBN and book title. This is easily seen by clicking on the ISBN to the Book Sources page, then click on find it in World Cat, where the book is Jane Austen in Context, and there is one essay by Sutherland, title given at start of this long post. Which essay that supports the text – Waldron or Sutherland? I do not have the book at hand. Per World Cat, the Sutherland essay begins on page 67. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

cross posting from Talk:Mansfield Park:
Prairieplant, it says you copied from this version of Jane Austen to this article [ Mansfield Park ], but it's very confusing to understand what you've done. The version you copied from had been edited by Ceoil but I seriously doubt he added citation templates, yet you added them throughout without gaining consensus and now there's another mess. I've fixed Sutherland which had the wrong title (copy/paste error, sorry about that). I've not yet ordered Todd from the library to check pages to the sources so it might all change once I have that book in hand. Fergus is wrong in the Jane Austen article - I have the 2014 edition, the cites and ISBN and page numbers are for an earlier edition, so they don't yet match up. I was in the process of fixing when I got interrupted but will do it as soon as possible. It takes some concentration to read the article's text and find the correct page number in the book and then change in the article, so I probably won't have the time to get to it for a few days, but thanks for the reminder. Essentially, to be very frank, what this underscores is the danger of copying text from one article (which is actively being worked) to another and changing the citation style - all in a single edit. Victoria (tk) 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
P.s - If Worldcat says Sutherland is on page 67, then it's either for a different edition or incorrect. According to this Sutherland is page 12-22, but I cannot emphasize how important it is to have these books in hand to verify, and that takes time. Victoria (tk) 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Progress update

I've ordered a number of books via interlibrary loan, put in the time required to read and immerse myself in sources, and added a general style section. There's one more bit I'll be adding there, then I think that's all we have space for in this parent article, and I think, because we have the fully developed Styles and themes of Jane Austen subarticle, that it's ok to have a generalized style and themes section. I had hoped to get to the themes this week, but I have to be offline for a while, perhaps as long as a week or longer, so I'll get to it when I can. In the meantime, I'd hoped to be able to do some work to the separate novels subarticles while I have sources in hand and am willing, but it's very discouraging to see the template dispute being brought to the other pages and it's a timesink, to be honest. I don't understand why Wikipedia has to function in such a way that when an editor offers and is willing to do the work that needs to be done (write sections requested in the GA review and necessary for FA), is willing to spend the time ordering books, picking them up, reading and then doing the writing and is willing to go so far as using sources at hand to spruce up the subpages, and yet is spending time tidying more mistakes or defending. This is a very dysfunctional system we have. I'm fairly fed up. Victoria (tk) 17:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No rush or hurry with this one. Nice work so far. Ceoil (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations in Jane Austen

The value of arguments on both sides of this debate are substantively equal. Looking at a pure numerical breakdown, a slight majority of editors oppose the proposal. The proposal, at its essence, is: should the article be completely revised into Harvard format? There is not a consensus to make this change. That said, the absence of a consensus to change the entire article to Harvard format should only be seen as a restraint against a wholesale revision of the article into Harvard format, it does not command a preferred format for future edits beyond what is expected of the MOS and customary guidelines (e.g. WP:CS has been mentioned). This would have to be addressed in a separate RfC, should someone be inclined to open one. LavaBaron (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extensive debate over the past week regarding the selection of a consistent citation format for citations in the Jane Austen article. A group of three editors have stepped up to offer to do the complete conversion of the article into Harvard format following WP:CITEVAR (@Jonesey95, RexxS, and Prairieplant:) which has been substantially started by them already. They were rebuffed by users Victoriaearle and Lingzhi who felt that the original version of the article from 10 years ago had initially been started in MLA format by the late Wadewitz. Since Wadewitz passed away, 5-6 editors have edited the article in different cite formats, and the late Wadewitz is no longer here to state a preference. If you SUPPORT the complete conversion of the remainder of the article in agreement with the Harvard format then indicate this as your SUPPORT, and if you OPPOSE the Harvard format then indicate your preference below. The Policy and Tech editors may also indicate their preferences below. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Support and Oppose Section

  • SUPPORT as originating this Rfc. The three editors who have stepped up to do the full conversion are all experienced editors who have already made substantial progress in converting the article to a consistent citation format for the benefit of current readers of the article. Its is a pleasure to watch them edit cooperatively and in agreement with each other as they were doing last week in order to bring the current article into a consistent citation format for the benefit of current readers of the article. SUPPORT make sense here and is in the spirit of the late Wadewitz whom many of us continue to respect for her impact on Wikipedia. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Provisional support: Hopefully, it's pretty obvious by now that short citations in MLA for short citations because they are far more robust, consistent, and interchangeable with other articles. However, the same problems do not arise with the long citations. I am completely happy with whatever presentation style is agreed upon for those, although I would say that changing the style of display for long citations is a job that needs to be done last, after all the inconsistencies have been sorted out, because once you remove all of the citation templates from the long citations, you will no longer have the benefit of many of the tools designed to spot errors, which are tremendously useful when you have these many citations. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I don't think it matters much what the style is, as long as it's clear and consistent. (More generally, once this detail is agreed, I think FAC should be seriously contemplated. There are several editors contributing to the earlier discussions whom I greatly admire, such as my immediate predecessor, above – though we don't always agree – and I'd be very glad to join a discussion about taking the article forward. Jane ought to be at FA. But I digress, I admit.) Tim riley talk 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral as the RfC is poorly worded. No one disputes the need for a consistent format for refs, the problem is what format to use. I suggest that the nominator withdraw and reformulate. Also, looking at the massive amount of edit-warring that resulted in a locked article, it might be wise for the filing party to chill out a bit too. Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support converting the article to Harvard citations using {sfn} templates. I find them elegant, easy to use, and particularly well-suited to articles where most of the sources are books rather than online. — Diannaa (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support converting to Harvard citations with sfn templates and cite formats for any refs that do not fit with sfn. I offer to help in this work. I think the Request for Comment is clear enough, as that had been an issue on the table before one editor acted opposite to her own posted comments and blanked sections of the article. Moving forward from the Good Article with the process of matching short references (in the text) to long references (in the Bibliography), and applying the Harvnb format (using sfn) to references author by author, is the only process that makes sense to me. Once the references are clear and properly formatted, then changes can proceed as to the content, as well as a consideration of some sophisticated options on how the Bibliography is displayed on the page. I think an article on this important writer, Jane Austen, should use the best features of Wikipedia for references, making it easy for any reader to learn from the article; making it easy for readers who want to track down the references used, to do so; making it easy for readers who want to copy the details of the references for use in their own work, to do so; making it easy for features of Wikipedia to check that references do not have errors and flag errors when they arise so that an editor can correct the error. Further, once this method is in place, future editors will see the style of this article and can easily use it for content that is added. This work on this article will start an approach to use in the related articles on Jane Austen, which share many of the same sources for discussing different aspects of her work and the reception of her work. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    • This article as written currently hits about a 50% copyvio on Earwig, mostly due to overly long quotations. So blanking some material, particularly said long quote and other close paraphrasing, was probably appropriate, though that red herring is actually outside the scope of this RfC. Montanabw(talk) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This sounds more like feedback of mirror sites using the late Wadewitz's article by open source policy at Wikipedia on their sites being reported back to Wikipedia as re-copied from Wikipedia. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again. The outcome of this RfC was predetermined from the start, since it is packed with the same crew who flipped the format with never even a thought for any opinion other than their own. None of the benefits come from the format; all come from the nature of templates themselves. Strongly suggest respect be extended to those who edited before you, who labored before you. Strongly suggest that courtesy be extended as well. All of you should have the courtesy and respect to go to the appropriate forum and request the template editors to make an MLA formatted template (and others as well: APA, Chicago, Bluebook). You can do it under the heading of Help talk:Citation Style 1#Wadewitz memorial proposalLingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:CITEVAR is pretty clear that the established citation form on any article should be respected. That various editors have worked well together to change it, or have (needlessly) spent a lot of time and effort doing so, is irrelevant. I'm sure there are some spambot authors who work well together and spend a lot of time on their creations; that doesn't mean what they're doing is right. I agree with Lingzhi that if Wikipedia supports various citation formats it should have templates for them, but that's a slightly different matter. WaggersTALK 11:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, it's pretty clear that CITEVAR does not override talk page consensus. Regardless of the then-, now-, or future-citation variation, a talk page consensus can change that, and that is what this RFC is doing. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Trying to do. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed, a detail I meant to say, but was too lazy to amend my comment. :) --Izno (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    My point still stands, until that consensus is established (and it hasn't yet been) the original style should be (or should have been) respected. The fact that someone has proceeded to make sweeping changes without first gaining consensus and then come up with an "I've done it now so we might as well all agree to leave it in its current state" proposal is irksome. WaggersTALK 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    I think even a number of the contributors who made the changes which moved it toward a different style had it only in mind to make it so the works can be referenced and don't actually care what the final style is so long as the text continues to be verifiable. So I don't think there are many, if any "I've done it now" type persons here (and even the ones who are I think are acting quite clearly in good faith). --Izno (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Waggers: If there had been a consistent "original style" to respect, you would have a point. There's wasn't, and what is even more irksome is being accused of doing something that didn't happen. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    If I use VisualEditor, does that mean I don't have to type all these damned colons? Anyhow, there probably was a consistent format back in the Wadewitz strata of the page hist. Then well-meaning editors jumbled things up.... what's the word for an area with no stratification boundaries... I've seen it before, dad smack it... my original objection was that the process shoud have taken a benignly long-range overview and respected the original MLA rather than doing a freeze-it snapshot of current conditions. Plus, more importantly, the process of altering the citevar should not have occurred OVERNIGHT. There is no bizarro wiki-world where consensus is determined overnight, given that there was an explicit message not to alter format, and the format had stood for wiki-millenia. Even in cases without current disagreement the consensus-change should have sat as public info for for I dunno at least a week and maybe two. And contributors should have been notified (Though that's a sensitive topic here with Wadewitz having passed away). And so on.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    Actually, there wasn't a consistent format back in the Wadewitz strata of the page hist, and I'm getting a bit tired having to correct unfounded speculations. Here's the 15 October 2013 version and you can see most of the problems you complained about at FAC. Why couldn't you check that yourself? The well-meaning editors may well have jumbled it further because they couldn't follow the completely undocumented made-up style that is a recipe for such chaos. When you complained of the problems at FAC, the natural reaction was to fix them. They are now fixed. There is certainly no bizarro-wiki-world where you need to establish consensus to fix problems. See WP:BOLD. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    RexxS, the cites were almost consistent until FoP copy-pasted c. 5,000 into the articles in April, including c. 2,500 from several novels articles. That's when the major inconsistencies appeared. Those edits should have been rolled back (because they were bad edits for several reasons), rather than changing the entire citation style because of them. SarahSV (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Sarah the cites were a very long way from consistent on 10 April 2016 before the large imports, as a glance will show. As Lingzhi pointed out at the FAC, there are many sources in the refs which are never cited, and there are numerous inconsistencies in formatting such as Doody, "The Short Fiction" vs Doody, "The Shorter Fiction", etc. I would add the use of short cites such as <<Fergus, "Biography", Jane Austen in Context, 3–4.>> that relate to a long cite <<Todd, Janet, ed. Jane Austen In Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-521-82644-6.>>, which does not mention Fergus and hence does not attribute the author as it should. Then there are: <<Southam, "Introduction", Vol. 1, 152>>, <<Southam, "Henry James on Jane Austen", Vol. 2, 230.>>, <<Brian Southam, quoted in Trott, "Critical Responses, 1830–1970", 92;>> (apart from the inconsistencies, who is Trott??), as I've already identified. Why is <<For more information and a discussion of the economics of book publishing during this period, see Fergus, "The Professional Woman Writer", 18, and Raven, "Book Production", 196–203.>> in References, not in Notes, and where are the long cites that match <<Fergus, "The Professional Woman Writer">>? and <<Raven, "Book Production">>? (the only long cite for Raven has no mention of the word 'Production' - is that the book or a different one by Raven, such as Judging New Wealth: Popular Publishing and Responses to Commerce in England, 1750-1800?). I could go on, but I've done arguing when I'm faced with a sheer refusal to see the scale of the problem. I'm unwatching and wish you all well with your attempts to improve the article. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    RexxS I hope you will come back when this does get resolved. You have done everything possible to make points clear, and kept your temper, too. I for one was most impressed when you set up the page to show the long references (the Bibliography section) to show as MLA format by using a mode= parameter, which was all new to me. Thank you for doing that, for making a discussion point something clear and visible, and writing about it in two places in this long discussion. Slim Virgin is stuck like a broken record, in my view, and exaggerates greatly as to the problems, rather than focussing on moving forward from here. There are just a few long references needing to be moved into the article for all the short references to be linked. I found them and have them waiting in my own sandbox, ready for when it is safe to make changes again. So no one in this long discussion should be worrying about "fixing" the references brought in with text from another article, as they are fixed or will be with one more edit. The tougher citation issues, in my reviews of the Jane Austen article, are in other parts of the article, where comments were interspersed with citations with no concern for consistent format of the citations or the article itself. Now is the moment to make them consistent, it is about 95% done now. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because if this done it seems clear from the above that the article will lose Victoria, who, of the various editors involved, is much the most experienced both in this subject area (where she has professional expertise) and at FAC, and has offered to put in a lot of work. Other editors should seize this offer gratefully with both hands. As User:Montanabw says, the issue is not whether there should be consistency, but which style should be used, ultimately a pretty trivial matter, which some editors, very wrongly, seem to think is the most important thing about the article. The article has other problems which some here don't recognise, or have even caused. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A very open offer made to her to participate here [6] was turned down by her. The main priority for the current article appears to be to get the current citations into a consistent format for the benefit of current readers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Johnbod (though it may not seem I do) that the citation format is very far from being the only or even the most critical problem here. This is the first of many problems, potentially serious, that need to be resolved. I would say that comments above about text removed from the lede suggest that the article would fail a subsequent FAC per 1b (comprehensive).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What has all that got to do with the question being asked at here: "RfC:Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations". It's ridiculous tangents like this that stop any progress being made. Let me ask you this, Lingzhi, are you interested in finding a consensus on the question being asked or just intent on derailing the discussion? As for your appeal to authority, John, I have as much claim to "professional expertise" as Victoria has, although it dates back to the last millennium, but how does that bring us closer to a consensus on a viable format for citations? --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No Rex, you don't. Did you fail to read my comment? Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, John, I do. It's been decades since I taught English Lit, but even then I remember that Jane Austen's first novel was published anonymously and her father was an Anglican clergyman, unlike your "much the most experienced ... in this subject area" so-called expert. I'm not interested in a pissing contest, but your suggestion that we should defer to Victoria because she knows so much more about the subject is, frankly, laughable. --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
RexxS, the personal attacks have to stop. As for the rector issue, which you've mentioned before, it's repeated two sentences later. Victoria probably removed the first one for that reason. I'd have done the same. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sarah, let's make a deal then? You and John stop making Victoria out to be something she's not, and I'll stop debunking the myth. Did you read Victoria's edit summaries? No need to guess at her reasons: "this was added to the Feb version (without a cite) & is a considerable change; needs verification" -- a considerable change??? needs verification??? really? even though the image of the title page was staring her in the face a few inches below. "feb version doesn't specify occupation; yet the sources remain unchanged; will need to find a source for it" As source for her father being a clergyman??? even though it is repeated two sentences later. Look, I'd have also done the same myself, but I would have done it to avoid repetition, not because it wasn't in "the definitive feb version", and not because I'd need to find a source to prove Jane's dad was a rector. Victoria is hard-working, well-intentioned, and has a good writing style, so I'd love to see her working on this article. But she's not shown any expertise on Jane Austen and we shouldn't be trying to make other editors defer to her 'expertise'. Nevertheless, I'm happy to see Victoria encouraged to add content to the article, so as far as I'm concerned, she should go ahead. --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)#
I took the comments about Victoria's "professional expertise" to mean she has works in the field of literature. I may be wrong about that but it doesn't concern me. She has said openly that she needs time to research Austen so there is no pretence of her being a Janeite expert. This is beyond the point, however, since I doubt many FA writers are experts on the subject when they begin. But she has offered to do the work and get it done; that's what matters and that's good enough for me. --92.5.94.147 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

() Please be advised: if we continue discussing article editors instead of article text, this discussion is quite likely to be moved to ANI or arbcom. That is not a threat. It is a general observation based on the way these things often play out.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

() Positive reviews of the current article were made by Bishonen, J Milburn, and Miniapolis for GOCE whom you continue not to contact on their Talk pages with your concerns. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Could you add a little to your comment to RexxS here and let me know the special qualifications of Visctoria as an FA author. I did read through Sarah's various FA articles listed on her User page with some interest though when I go the Victoria's User page there is only an image and no text which comes on my screen. If Victoria is a professor at some college please let me know. I really would like to know since I only heard that she did some FA writing somewhere, though not on the Jane Austen article here where she is not listed as one of the frequent editors. If you know where I can read one of her published articles then perhaps you could link it here so that others can see it as well. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 'NO!' Asking others to trawl the internet to find information about me and then to post it here is considered WP:OUTING and worth a block. I'm on my way out, pinging Iridescent, Floquenbeam, Johnuniq, John, someone who is not involved to take a look and decide what to do about this. I want to be offline until the beginning of September and want this shit to stop. If it needs to go the AN then, fine, but outing is not cool. Victoria (tk) 17:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this particular tangent is a dead end, and no one should pursue it. I can see how people might have been led incrementally to the point where this seems like a reasonable request, but it is not. We are not going to try to figure out how much professional expertise Victoriaearle has by trying to find her published papers. (Similarly, we can't base decisions on deferring to her professional expertise, although I personally have no issue with deferring to her on-wiki expertise in this area). For now, I'm just assuming a garden variety mistake of over-eagerness with no underlying motive, so I don't think AN/ANI is needed. Unless there is more to this than what I see in this threaded discussion starting with Johnbod's oppose, I haven't looked at any more than that. If there is more, then this talk page is probably not the place to discuss it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I plan to follow Floquenbeam's comment. If the editor does not want to list her FA articles from Wikipedia then she does not have to. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

() Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. This thread is getting WAY out of hand. I must concur with what Johnbod said, and then repeat my assertion "Drop your idea and anyone else's idea that this article can go to FAC any time in the near future." There is way way way too much frustrated impatience here. Please do stop.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

() Johnbod has now presented the link to her FA articles which now gives me a dozen to two dozen articles which I can read with thanks. Johnbod and J Milburn were the two editors who had originally put the fire under me to write that section here [7]. Johnbod especially emphasized the importance of doing this new section and Josh then followed up on its development towards the current GOCE version of the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A whole number of people, including Tim Riley and an ISP in the FAC, have mentioned the lack of literary analysis of themes in the novels. Your "solution" to this was to copy vast stretches from the Reception history article, which was not what people were asking for, was undue, and has created a lot of the referencing issues, as people have pointed out many times on this page and elsewhere. A concise, newly-written, summary of that and the actual themes sub-article would be useful. But people have said this many times. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod, thanks again for providing that link to the featured articles lists. Your comment here comes as something as a surprise since it was directly on your request last April that the substantial effort with J Milburn began to bring that section into a polished form that was then prepared for FA review by Miniapolis for GOCE. You must have seen this since you signed on to it with your own signature here: [8]. If you did not like it then why didn't you say something, even anything then, when you requested that it be created and you saw the effort being devoted by us to bring it up for assessment as done by Miniapolis for GOCE. Multiple editors have given a positive assessment to it including Bishonen, J Milburn, and Miniapolis for GOCE after you requested it. The citations in it only number 20-30 cites which can be converted to any format needed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Like many other editors I don't have the stamina to follow this article the whole time. A number of people have made the same point, in both the GA & FAC reviews, but you don't seem to want to hear it. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for providing the link to the FA articles. For the future I'll ask that if you have such reservations on section development that you can state them more openly. J Milburn and I spent a great deal of time improving and enhancing that section because of your original encouragement to do this, and Miniapolis then then did the GOCE review to enhance them further in preparation for FA assessment. I am requesting in the future that, yes, you may change your mind as you have done here, though just to be more open in any reservations you might have on the type of requests which you made to both J Milburn and myself back in April. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I haven't "changed my mind" at all. I, and several others, asked for one thing (literary analsis/themes) and you did another (2nd "Reception" section). You asked for comments but I wasn't following by that point & did not (as far as I can remember) review the new section, or comment further. I and several others have revisited the matter recently, but you seem not willing to take these comments on board. I also asked for sections on the novels & have not commented on these since. If you think that was "a great deal of time improving and enhancing that section" I'm not sure you are ready for another FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Your support for that new section was plainly stated here [] back in April and your current oppose to it is plain for everyone to see now. You are fully entitled to change your mind and its odd that you appear not to see this. If you had stated your oppose back then, J Milburn and I could have taken a different path along with Miniapolis, though you said nothing opposing back in April. You have the link to your edit from April right there to click. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This is getting very silly. My old comment you link to was "I agree - the lack of "literary analysis" was one of Tim Riley's first comments at the start. Certainly this would be a necessity for FAC. In some ways, since Austen's novels have a lot of similarities, it should be relatively straightforward here." True then, true now. You still haven't fully addressed this, though there is some of it in the sections on the individual novels (on which I am commenting for the first time). The current very long "themes" section, copied from the "reception" sub-article and all about the history of Austen criticism, is only tangential to this. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for the FA articles list you provided which was useful. The point of 'very silly' you ascribe here brings up a good point though it does not provide the full discussion. The themes section did not develop the material from the Styles article you keep referring to because that article was not a peer reviewed article like the Reception article by the late Wadewitz which was a peer reviewed article of much better quality and refinement. The Reception material was applied for subsequent editing by J Milburn and myself after you said it was needed, and then it received positive commentary from Bishonen and further copy edits from Miniapolis for GOCE. We can all see you oppose it now even though it was your original vote of confidence that caused all of us to create and further enhance that section. It reads quite well now in its current form. I have a high regard for the editing and useful enhancements made by Bishonen, J Milburn, and by Miniapolis to that section. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've outlined problems with the recent edits at User:SlimVirgin/JA. See points 7–9 for the citation-style changes.
    The ArbCom ruled in 2006, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles, that "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style ...".
    That decision was the basis of the STYLEVAR guidelines that have prevented disputes like this one: DATEVAR, ENGVAR and the pertinent one here, CITEVAR. CITEVAR cautions against "replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's ... [or] adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates ..."
    The editors wanting to make the change argue that the styles were not consistent, and therefore CITEVAR doesn't apply, but they were consistent until April (apart from a few issues, easily fixed). Most of the inconsistencies were added in one edit on 13 April when Fountains-of-Paris copied c. 2,500 words into this article from several articles about the novels. The latter had been edited by multiple people and used a variety of styles. Fountain's edit should have been rolled back for other reasons, including that the text was copied with no checks (one example of plagiarism has been found already), and that an FA candidate shouldn't offer readers text copied from other pages. Instead of rolling back, another editor arrived and started adding citation templates.
    The larger issue is whether we value specialist content editors. Victoriaearle, one of the few editors with professional expertise in this area, has been replaced by editors who probably don't even want to read the sources. If you're all willing to become sufficiently immersed in the secondary literature to write an FA, that's great, but do you realize how much work that's going to be? SarahSV (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The citation consistency editors participating here have offered to bring all the citations in the article into a consistent format and have made substantial progress in doing just that. The citation consistency editors are ready to finish bringing all the current article into a consistent citation format for the benefit of current readers. The benefit of current readers of this article is significant. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Fountains-of-Paris, you seem to be talking about the citation style as if it is the only issue. Sorry but there are many problems with the article - I've been saying them for a while and now SarahSV has listed them clearly (raising other issues I hadn't even noticed). Things won't be fine and dandy once the citations are consistent. I don't like to be dismissive of people's efforts on an article but it appears from what Sarah says that you mostly did a copy-and-paste job anyway, so I don't feel too bad about asking you to allow others to develop the article along the lines of e.g. Ernest Hemingway. That is what will benefit readers. --92.5.94.147 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This section is a WP:Request for Comment: "RfC: Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations". I was hoping that participants would be willing to try to work towards a consensus on the issue of what consistent format would be best for this article. Instead, we seem to be rehashing everything else. Montanabw, your point about attribution/copyvio is well made, but do you have any preference between Harvard-style and some other citation style? Linghzhi, I think you're in favour of MLA citations: how do you answer the issues I summarize at User:RexxS/NoCiteBar? Sarah, I understand what you don't want, but could you indicate what format you would want, please? I can demonstrate that the format in February was seriously inconsistent, so is there any consistent format we could move toward? John, have you anything at all to contribute on what format we should use: I assume from your oppose you actually have some opinion on the subject. 92.5.94.147, you'd like to see the article developed along the lines of Ernest Hemingway, which clearly uses Harvard-style referencing, so given the request in the preamble, "if you OPPOSE the Harvard format then indicate your preference below", how do you support and oppose Harvard-style at the same time? --RexxS (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Like you and most of the editors here, I won't be doing any work on the text of the article, which is the most important thing, and should be the main priority. I will always support the citation style preferences of the editors actually doing that work. SV and others have explained how the current citation style "problem" has arisen above. Most of that text should not be in the article anyway; once it is removed or summarized by someone actually using the sources most of the issues will vanish. The views of editors only here to impose citations in their preferred style count for very little with me. I see no reason to move from what was the established style, and the one that the editor with the best chance of getting this through FAC prefers. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • RexxS I'm reading your essay. I am not at all trying to poke you when I say that the essay has a large number of holes (in my opinion), too the point of special pleading. As for what I want on this forum, I want the following: 1) Drop your idea and anyone else's idea (maybe {{U}|Fountains-of-Paris}} that this article can go to FAC any time in the near future. It appears to me at least that it will take more than a few weeks to resolve the issues with the body text alone. I'm not saying this to be mean. I honestly believe that the REAL source of all the friction here is the pent-up frustration of a small group of editors who want to march this into FAC mucho pronto. It cannot work that way. I hope you will find guidance in meta:eventualism. 2) Put the lede back into its prior state, incorporating any new details that may have been added since 3) Make the body text match the lede instead of vice versa. Use the lede as an outline, I mean. I know most people argue you should write the body first then make the lede match, but there is real need for the opposite in this case. 4) VERIFY ALL CITES. Many editors have been fumbling around here, generating errors. 5) Address Montanabw's copyvio concerns. 6) As for the reference citation format, it's OK to freeze it for now but eventually (in the sense of, within the next 6 weeks or so) I want templates that display BOTH MLA short and long format.... That seems enough for now...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Item #5 was asked and answered promptly above: "This sounds more like feedback of mirror sites using the late Wadewitz's article by open source policy at Wikipedia on their sites being reported back to Wikipedia as re-copied from Wikipedia." Regarding your other comments, the current version of the article has received positive comments from Bishonen, J Milburn, and Miniapolis for GOCE; should you be consulting with them perhaps. Everyone can see that you are opposed to anything but MLA as you broadcast this to several users when you first found it, and you included me in your repetition of this on my Talk page here: [9]. We understand that you are passionately against anything but MLA, we get it, even though multiple editors would like to move on to Harvard style now for the benefit of current readers of the article. I can list your repeated broadcast list to multiple editors promoting MLA here if you request me to do this. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • RexxS, you asked what I wanted. First, please look at User:SlimVirgin/JA, point 11. Those were just spot checks of one section. I would like a rollback to 18 February, before the recent deterioration of the content. The citation style in that version was: Collins, 100; and Collins, Irene. Jane Austen and the Clergy. London: The Hambledon Press, 1994. Any inconsistencies can be fixed easily. If you want a year, we can add Collins 1994, 100. But as others have said, it should be left to the editors doing the writing, and Victoria is a good person to lead that. If I were writing this alone, I would revert to Wadewitz's last version (which is currently the only version we know is FA standard), then I'd restore everything from later versions that I could trust. But I would work that way round. SarahSV (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
No deterioration of content at all. That version you refer to received positive assessment from Bishonen, with improvement from J Milburn included, and copy editing by Miniapolis for GOCE. I consider all three of those contributing editors to that section to be of top quality in their useful edits for the section you appear to freely wish to discount with your pejoratives. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The danger of copying words from articles with multiple editors, such as the novels articles, is that sources may have been left out, moved, misunderstood or plagiarized. - and the solution to that danger is to use consistent citations styles across articles, which hand-written citations are incapable of assuring. The citation style in the February 18 version is an appalling mish-mash. What style is << Collins, 100>>? Is <<Author, Page>> your preference for a consistent style? The article on 18 February also contained the following short cite styles:
  • <<Author, "Chapter title (shortened arbitrarily)", Collection title, Page>>
  • <<for details on "lower fringes", see Author. Page>>
  • <<Author, Collection title, Page>>
  • <<Qtd. in Author, Collection title, Page>>
and many more, including a number of references that are actually Notes. How is an editor to know what style to use? and how is a reader to find a source like <<Author, Collection title, Page>>? when the author's name is not listed within the long citation that it actually refers to, despite that being a requisite of every defined system of referencing that uses short citations today. Southam's two collections of Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage are referenced in two different ways: <<Southam, "Criticism 1870–1940", 108>> (which may refer to Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1870–1940 or a chapter in The Jane Austen Companion) and <<Southam, "Scott in the Quarterly Review", Vol. 1, 58>>, and what style is <<Brian Southam, quoted in Trott, "Critical Responses, 1830–1970", 92>> supposed to be? and what is <<Trott, "Critical Responses, 1830–1970">> for that matter - where's its long cite? That's just a fraction of the problems that I've identified at random; there are many more.
As for the long citations, many of them are not referenced by a short citation and should be in either a General references or a Further reading section per WP:GENREF, especially for an article with over 50 sources cited. A Jane Austen Devotional is missing the name of the author (Steffany Woolsey), and so on. I don't agree that these "inconsistencies can be fixed easily" without establishing a fixed, consistent style. Without the ability to reliably find the source book, nobody will be in a position to verify the content, or check for plagiarism. If you or Victoria want to go ahead and work on the 16 February 2016 version, I've copied it into Talk:Jane Austen/sandbox, properly attributed, so we can avoid removing the good work done by all of the contributors and reviewers since February. I'd be happy to advise on issues such as accessibility and referencing, where I have expertise, or help in tracking down sources on a subject where I have demonstrable "professional expertise". Living in the West Midlands, I have access to many good libraries within easy travel and I have JSTOR access, which is showing 247 results for "Jane Austen" at present. --RexxS (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is a move to Harvard cites then this situation should be resolved as giving consistent citations throughout the article. Also, I am able to provide the citations on a one-by-one basis if needed to provide all the citation information that is needed. That entire section was also reworked to a significant degree by the useful edits of J Milburn and Miniapolis for GOCE. Please note that two of those articles have changed significantly; Persuasion was much enhanced recently by Prairieplant, and Mansfield Park was substantially enhanced recently by @A.S. Brown: as a significantly improved version of those two pages. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • To be frank, I don't really care what citation style is used and I'm amazed it has caused so much of a commotion - especially when there are other more damaging problems with the article. FAC is too pernickety about references and that has now been extended here. Anyway, I can make some contribution by quoting JohnBod above, since I generally agree with this sentiment: "I will always support the citation style preferences of the editors actually doing that work." Take that as you will. --92.5.94.147 (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons detailed at User:SlimVirgin/JA. The "consistent citation format" discussion seems to have become (unconsciously perhaps) a cover-up of the real problem: general deterioration of the article. We had something similar going on at the article of a famous composer (at least I recognise one of the names with similar behaviour here). After initiating three RfCs in a row, none of which resulted in confirming the layout preferred by that editor, the editor was kindly asked to reduce their involvement with the biographical article. I can only hope we're not heading for a similar scenario here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • To the best of my recollection, User:Francis was blocked on the Bach page for his conduct and for edit warring there, while User:GerdaArendt had sent me a gracious thank you tab on my Talk page for my improvement and enhancement of the Bach article here [10]. User:Francis appears to have been blocked five or six times at Wikipedia mostly for edit warring, and it appears that his comment here seems to have more to do with the Bach page than with the current discussion. It may be up to other editors here to decide if User:Francis's comments and opposition here are on point or if his comments should be abridged in some way. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sure. Tried to warn you gently though, but suppose this was going to happen anyhow if you don't change your MO. So please stop to make this personal, I stand with my opposition based on SV's rationale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comments above and CITEVAR, changing it for the sake of it just distracts others from content creation. It wasnt broken before the last round of edits so put it back as it was and improve the content instead. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It wasnt broken before the last round of edits so put it back as it was - Oh really? How about you read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive2 #Oppose by Lingzhi? Tell us all how a respected editor like Lingzhi would have found a dozen examples of broken citations if "it wasnt broken" [sic]? This is why CITEVAR is such a bad idea; it gets misused by folks like MilborneOne to prevent anybody fixing very real reference problems. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First, there is no WP:Deadline. Second, pushing through a variation of citation formatting to gain a support !vote at FAC is a poor reason. To recap: at at the FAC nomination page on Aug. 16 Lingzhi requested that the citations be cleaned up. Within 24 hours it was determined there, (not here on this talk page) that consensus existed to convert the citation format and in fact this work began as early as August 16 and the work continued without interruption for two days or longer despite objections from the FAC reviewer that inserting templates will not solve the problems and objections on this page from myself and others. Essentially the article needs to be rolled back to an earlier version but I'll address that in the thread below. I wondered if it was possible to keep the work of those who put in the templates while removing the sections that don't belong in this article and were copied from other articles complete with inconsistent citation formatting. I was called away from the computer before I had the opportunity to post the reasons for those edits and when I returned this RfC had been launched. In the meantime I've been doing a survey of the literature, have retrieved many articles from various databases, am finding books such as Claudia Johnson and Clara Tuite's compilation of essays that will be used for the rewrite (that's only a single example), have gone through the article history and found some instances such as this where a source was added without adhering to the style used in the article, and in working through the article from top to bottom (I'm only at the second paragraph) have been able to determine the reason sources were previously bundled but are now unbundled, and would prefer to keep the bundled style so as to keep that research (in the unbundled format we run the risk of someone thinking because we might not need four citations for the Austen's marriage, deciding to delete some, when in fact it's a little more complicated than that). At this points it's best to revert to the style used before all this work began, to work through the article from top to bottom checking the text to the sources, make sure the existing sources are correct and adhere to a consistent style (as opposed the concept of Wikipedia's citevar), then add a standard themes section and a style section with the most up-to-date research (again, I've started on this, am looking about 2000 pages of reading) all of which will be added to the page in a consistent format, and once all that is done revisit to determine whether or not templates should be added. Victoria (tk) 15:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – The new citation format is more helpful to readers, as each pointer can lead to the relevant book in one click. Particularly handy when an article cites dozens of works in hundreds of places. — JFG talk 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm seeing 2 separate issues here. One is that a consistent citation format is needed. The second is that the MLA citation format is not suitable. If using a consistent format is the only issue, then I agree with Lingzhi that we can continue to use MLA as was used originally. The second argument is that the MLA citation format is not suited for Wikipedia. If that is the case, then it needs a site wide discussion at village pump where a wider audience can look at it. Should it be decided that MLA is not suitable for Wikipedia at all, we can then remove the MLA citations from all articles on Wikipedia. Till the time such a consensus is achieved though, I would request that this article continue to use MLA. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lemongirl942: The cross-conversion between Harvard cites and MLA cites is now virtually entirely complete and finished according to the off-page discussion between Ling, Prairieplant, and RexxS, and things have moved a little forward from your last comments. Does that have a bearing on your comments here. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
FoP, nothing has moved forward. Please don't post misleading descriptions of what has happened. There is discussion below about whether to go back to a version without the templates and without your recent additions. And there is this open RfC (opened by you) about whether to use templates. SarahSV (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the off-page discussion between Ling, RexxS, and Prairieplant which has moved this matter forward on their Talk pages. RexxS claims that it is virtually completed. Check with them on their Talk pages to confirm this. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Nothing has been decided anywhere else, FoP. This is the RfC about whether there is consensus to add citation templates. This is where the issue will be decided (which I assume is why you opened it). SarahSV (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the extensive discussion between Ling, RexxS, and Prairieplant about the nearly completed cross-conversion between Harvard cites and MLA. If you do not ask those editors you will miss that the completion of that cross-conversion substantially alters the course of this RfC and this discussion. Part of their mostly off-page discussion even appears on this Talk page which you must have seen and which any other editor can read here on this Talk page. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I've not kept up with this talk page and have stopped reading many of the posts after seeing edit summaries only. Nonetheless, I don't see any extensive discussions about cross-conversions. Those discussions need to be brought here so we can all be involved with them. It's best not to have discussions in too many places. Victoria (tk) 19:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Victoriaearle Lemongirl942 SlimVirgin The issue has progressed substantially re format and style of references; I think it will be courteous of you to glance at a page prepared by RexxS at Special:Permalink/736061849. Please do look at it. RexxS demonstrated that MLA style can show on the finished page while Wikipedia 'cite formats' are used in the edit text. That looks like resolution of the format question to me and the basis for consensus on this point.
I have read all the posts in this lengthy discussion, and can assure you that all relevant points are posted here. I would like to add the last three full citations missing from the current article for the benefit of readers of the current article, finishing the other complaint about text moved without the full citations being moved with it, if that does not offend anyone. They are stowed for now in my Sandbox. Now it is my goal that this group of editors, who goes ahead on their own tangent, reads what has been done in reply to their strong love of MLA style for references. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Support per RexxS, Prairieplant, and JFG. Graham (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am very confused. Victoriaearle removed all of the Harvard format from the article, eliminated the organization of the Bibliography, altered and deleted large amounts of text as she chose. What is the point of this 30 day period of delays to changes while we await the decision on the format, if the article is substantially changed from the Good Article it once was? It feels like a hierarchy of editors exists, as some are allowed in while others wait around for consensus to be reached. Prior changes of this magnitude were reverted by Fountains-of-Paris on September 1, 2016, 7 reverts beginning with this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_Austen&diff=737254249&oldid=737160714 while these changes of September 4, 2016 are standing. If the changes were simply to clarify short references by adding the essay title or year for linking to the long reference, a continuation of the tasks begun before this Request for Consensus was put in place, that might have been fine. But the changes are far beyond that. Can anyone explain this situation? Fountains-of-Paris or any other editor who can explain this, I would like to learn. I have never been involved in such an extensive discussion replete with arguments, and the rules of Wikipedia are getting muddier instead of clearer. Thanks to anyone who can make them clearer again. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Discussions wandered into very unproductive areas, including investigations regarding the ability of other editors, so this RfC is damaged beyond repair IMHO. Bold editing is often the best way for an article to progress, so I don't think the recent edits should be opposed on some principle. Instead, if there is a specific problem with the new text, that should be highlighted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi Prairieplant, I'm more than happy to explain what I've done. I took a closer look at the article as it stands and found some issues, had to trim out some text and tag a few places and then posted my concerns. Additionally I thought I'd work on the version Sarah put in a few days ago, which I did, and then out of respect I reverted back, but honestly it doesn't make sense to revert back to a version that's filled with problems. My view is that we have to rebuild. So I reverted myself and have since made some headway in formatting the short refs so they point directly to their long refs (which I created entries for). I've removed all the sources not used in the article and temporarily moved them to the "Further reading". I hope to be able to complete the short refs for the Copeland & McMasters essay compilation soon (the pagination is off because that edition is 1997 and mine is 2014 so I have to check every single ref against the book) and once I receive a copy of Grey and I can complete those short cites too. Once all that work is done, we can start reading the many sources in the "Further reading" and rebuild properly from there. I wouldn't worry about GA status - I can probably supply some sort of themes and style section from scratch fairly shortly. From there it'll be a slog to get to FA because this is a Vital article and the expectations are high, but we'll get there and I'm committed to helping. Once it's done I'll turn it over to whomever wants to take it through FAC. Does that make sense? Also, Johnuniq is right that you should voice specific concerns - I'm happy to address anything. Victoria (tk) 06:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • P.s - this isn't really part of the RfC and I agree with Johnuniq's comment above, so it might not be a bad idea to move this to a new thread, but of course it's up to you. Victoria (tk) 06:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Prairieplant, you asked what the point was of "this 30 day period of delays to changes while we await the decision on the format," but this isn't a 30-day period of delays. This is an RfC to ask for consensus to add citation templates. Asking that doesn't mean the article's content is frozen for 30 days. FoP acknowledged that he opened the RfC to halt the removal of the sections he had added, which had nothing to do with templates, but that's a misuse of the RfC system; in addition to that, this is an ill-formed RfC. (There have been similar problems elsewhere; see this comment and AN/I). As for GA status, the article is still a GA and is very close to FA; before the recent edits there was no possibility of FA. SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Victoriaearle and Johnuniq I was specific, and I repeat the specifics once more. You removed the Harvard formats that link short cites in the Reference list directly to the long cites, which is a specific topic of the RfC. You removed all cite formats in all references. You removed text added to make this a Good Article. Very specifically you undid the format that is the subject of the RfC, in a long string of 50 or 100 edits to your name on Sept 4, 2016 and I find that confusing, as people are still posting Support and Oppose comments. You did on Sept 4 what was undone in the name of the Request for Consensus on Sept 1, with no statements by the editor who posted the request for consensus, which is very specific. This was explained on this page, anyone can see the reverts in the View history for the Jane Austen article, going back far before your long string of edits, and four editors got posts on their own talk pages regarding 30 days and time for consensus, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=737258442&oldid=737132294. This is directly the topic of the RfC, and does belong here. Somehow this does not apply to you, and this is what I do not understand as to your specific actions of 50 to 100 edits after being asked specifically not to make edits now. I read your edits and I read what you said here, and I understand what you think and what you did; you rarely read what I post which I discern from you lack of replies until this reply, after you have taken over the article. I have understood Wikipedia to be more of a team effort, which is not what happens here. Live and learn. Happy Labor Day, assuming you are in the US. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prairieplant, I suppose my edit summary in these edits weren't clear. What I did was work in the old version of the article, then I reverted. After thinking about it, I decided it didn't make sense to keep the FAC version and reverted myself. At this point all I've done is clean the refs from the March version, and if, per the request for comment, agreement is to convert to templates, that can be easily achieved. Re long string of edits: yes, that's how I usually work. It's easier in mainspace, avoids problems with having to synch various versions from sandboxes or wherever, and it's really ok. I do realize it was a long string of bold edits. Victoria (tk) 13:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The good news is that if the edits are found to breach the outcome of an RfC, they can be fixed or even completely reverted if consensus determines that the old version is superior to the current version. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: The edits attempting to change the citation format to use sfn etc were performed wholly contrary to the provisions of WP:CITEVAR (which states clearly that there is no requirement to use any particular referencing system and promotes article stability by respecting such arbitrary style choices which have already been made). There is clearly no consensus for the changes despite the wish of some editors to impose them. Despite claims that sfn etc make it easier to write consistent references, the result of those changes had lots of Harvard errors and warnings. These botched changes were made at more or less the same time as other ill-considered content changes, the result of which together was to render the article unmaintainable for several weeks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

A thought

Having been summoned by the bot, my main thought in reviewing the above discussion is that I can't see any advantage that either format would confer that would be remotely worth the level of intense argumentation and wasted editorial effort from skilled volunteers that has now been put toward this matter--and I have long worked in fields where people put a premium on these details. Seriously folks, given that the !votes seem split more or less right down the middle, I'll happily flip a coin for you all, and you can all go back to putting your gifts to pragmatic use for the project rather than arguing in circles over the most silly of idiosyncrasies in citation style.... Seriously, I've got no horse in the race (mostly gravitate towards APA and CMS these days). Snow let's rap 06:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I was also summoned by a bot, and I felt as though it would be unfair to all those involved to provide a swing vote one way or another. I agree with Snow Rise, I can't really see the advantage over one format or the other (nor does it seem like the discussion revolves around this issue). It is a touching story in regards to the editor that passed away and editors attempts to keep his work solidified, but it is also clear that new experienced editors have done diligent work to change things over to the Harvard format. I will not be leaving a vote, best of luck to all of you. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016

Fan sites and societies

Ed3175 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: As a general rule, fan sites are never listed in an article. See WP:EL for more information. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2016

In the second paragraph of the section "Illness and death", the title Sanditon is misspelled Sandition in its second use. 2602:306:31A8:22D0:DC98:D494:A5B5:D42E (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

somebody with authority please change

'A such' TO 'As such'
'so it equally possible' TO 'so it is equally possible'
This:
A such, Koppel argued that competing interpretations of Austen's work, provided that they are grounded in readings of her work are all equally valid, and so it equally possible to see Austen as a feminist critiquing Regency society and as a conservative upholding the values of Regency society.[156]

to this:
As such, Koppel argued that competing interpretations of Austen's work, provided that they are grounded in readings of her work are all equally valid, and so it is equally possible to see Austen as a feminist critiquing Regency society and as a conservative upholding the values of Regency society.[156] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.141.177.4 (talkcontribs) 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I made those changes. I was tempted to further tweak the text starting at "Citing the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer" but I haven't got the energy at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the opening sentence

The article opens with the statement that Jane Austen "was an English novelist known primarily for her six major novels, which interpret, critique and comment upon the British landed gentry at the end of the 18th century." I had changed it to report that Austen "was an English novelist. Her work interprets, critiques and comments upon the British landed gentry at the end of the 18th century" (and this could be improved to "Her most famous works interpret [...]").

In any event, the current version features a redundancy, since it can be assumed that an artist will be "known primarily" for their most renowned works. More importantly, I consider the first version to be close to puffery, as it is not objective which works of an artist are "major". It is simply a matter of critical consensus which ones are – and even then, critical reception to a work of art can change enormously over time.

On a side note, I would like a source for Northanger Abbey being a major work. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no guideline saying that leads have to be boring. The current wording is fine and quibbling over whether particular works are "major" is unproductive. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, please! Or google books. You should do a bit of research before bringing things here. And certainly not change the JA template on a personal opinion and then immediately use that changed template to justify a reversion. This editor needs careful watching. Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree, this user seems to be editing under their personal opinion and not the preponderance of sources used in this article. --Laser brain (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothanger Abbey is very much considered within the Austen canon per mainstream modern criticism (Samuel Johnson mentions only four ... but ... ) and the sentence isn't puffery. Victoria (tk) 13:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Article quality

Reading one of past discussions, the citation style RfC, there may be major article issues, like sourcing and content. However, I've not yet fully evaluated the article. Would someone else explain the issues that may affect the article's status as GA. --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's all been sorted and article improvements are slowly being made so that eventually it can go to FAC. In the meantime all the sources have been checked and the source text integrity is now fine. It would best to let this issue rest. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh... that's cool. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The citation formatting is much improved from before the discussions last year, but there are still minor inconsistencies and errors. Only the most detail-oriented FAC reviewer would notice them, though, so the article will probably pass. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Jonesey95. It's still a very long way from FAC. Some real life events have intervened and prevented serious editing. If/when I can give the text the attention it deserves, the references will be tweaked. In the meantime, also, we can't stop others from editing and I've not really been tending. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

In Section 2.5 (Tom Lefroy), it is stated that: "The English scholar John Halperin wrote that Austen almost certainly died a virgin, and though she had several chances to marry, all ended in disappointment." While I appreciate that this statement is substantiated by an academic reference, I struggle to understand why on a page dedicated to Jane Austen, one of the most important authors of her era, we need to know about whether or not her hymen was broken by the time of her death. If there are legitimate reasons why this is indeed invaluable information for anyone interested in reading about Jane Austen I am very curious to read them. If there are indeed legitimate reasons, then for the sake of consistency across the Wikipedia database, all articles about people should provide that invaluable information for all to read. If there are no legitimate reasons, then I would strongly suggest getting rid of that sentence. Regards, WanjiK (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it for the time being. If more than one source mentions it (I've been reading her biographies and haven't read that assertion yet and haven't gotten to that point in rewriting the text), then we can revisit it, but generally agree with you. I doubt there's any way we can know, given the paucity of biographical information. Victoriaearle (tk) 14:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Under the common social conventions of the time, it was tacitly assumed that she (or any woman in her position) was a virgin, and if anyone had specific knowledge or gossip to indicate the contrary it could have been a scandal, but we really don't have any particular information on the subject beyond general default social presumptions, so I don't see much point in including such speculation in the article... Churchh (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

In the "Reception" section under subsection "19th Century" the second and third sentence read:

"In a rare sympathetic review, in this case of Emma in 1815, Sir Walter Scott wrote that book displayed "the art of copying from nature as she really exists in the common walks of life, and presenting to the reader, instead of the splendid scenes from an imaginary world, a correct and striking representation of that which is daily taking place around him".[145] Through Scott was positive, Austen's work did not match the prevailing aesthetic values of the Romantic zeitgeist.[145]"

The second sentence is awkward and improperly uses commas. Instead, it should read,

"In 1815, a rare sympathetic review of Emma by Sir Walter Scott displayed, "the art of copying from nature as she really exists in the common walks of life, and presenting to the reader, instead of the splendid scenes from an imaginary world, a correct and striking representation of that which is daily taking place around him".[145]

In the third sentence the use of "Through" is erroneous and should be changed to "Though". 96.232.200.186 (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Done; thanks for spotting that. And I've made some changes to avoid repeating 'though'. I think the second sentence is fine as it is, though. It's a rare sympathetic review, not just of Emma. Rothorpe (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo

The sentence "Her custom was to keep an infant at home for several month" should be "months". I can't edit this article. 62.232.92.194 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


Wrong date?

In the intro it says the new bank note was released on 2017-07-19, but it is only the 18th. I don't think released the new notes tomorrow, or at midnight, but there is no citation to check. Koonboi (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Quotation on new £10 note

The quotation on the new £10 note is not from Jane Austin herself, but the character Caroline Bingley, in Pride and Prejudice, who actually hated reading Chevin (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, Chevin, with the original source. I'm not sure that detail belongs in the lead section, nor as a blockquote, so I have moved and adjusted accordingly. And I've also changed from an in-line external link to a ref citation. I hope that look ok to you. But it probably also belongs over at Jane Austen in popular culture. But how very ironic. It seems, in a way, more notable that the airbrushed image which has caused all the fuss. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Stray phrase?

In the section "Tom Lefroy" there is a phrase that doesn’t make sense. It’s the last part of this sentence:

Five days later in another letter, Austen wrote she expected an "offer" from her "friend" and that "I shall refuse him, however, unless he promises to give away his white coat", going on to write "I will confide myself in the future to Mr Tom Lefroy, for whom I don't give a sixpence" and refuse all others.

To me, it looks like a forgotten remainder of editing, so I’d suggest deleting it and ending the sentence with "sixpence."

But I can’t find the original letter online, so who knows, maybe it should be there? What I did find online, which may be related, is an etiquette rule saying that when a girl at a ball declines one offer to dance, she has to refuse all others. --Geke (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Full citation needed: "Southam (1986), 187–189."

There appears to be no full citation matching "Southam (1986), 187–189." Maybe I'm missing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not missing it. It's not there. I've added it. Thanks for catching that. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Austen. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading Abbey Girls' School

I've recently created Reading Abbey Girls' School, which JA attended, and later immortalised in Emma as "a real, honest, old-fashioned Boarding-school". I've altered the link in the Education section, as previously it pointed to a school of a similar name which she did not attend. Any comments on the new article would be welcome. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some of the recent edits aren't improvements and I'd prefer to stay with the version currently in place. A quick spot check shows problems.

  • For example, compare this version of the "Published author" section (where the publishing info is fully explained and well sourced in the note) to how the current version looks, here. We tend to avoid bulleted lists, there's no reason to explain the book publishing info in the overview biography (which should use summary style only), and the section is now quite choppy compared to the flow in the earlier version. this edit duplicates information already explained in the note.
  • I've removed the this information about the two livings because that wasn't until a number of years later - will retrieve the relevant dates, but it doesn't belong in the paragraph about the courtship with Cassandra.
  • This edit about Walter Scott doesn't seem to fit in the "Chawton" section, it's an opinion and should be attributed directly to the literary critic, and the source needs checking. Compare the previous "Chawton" section to the most recent one

Thoughts? Victoriaearle (tk) 18:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on these points, and surely there is a "not" missing in "...& do mean to like Waverley if I can help it-but I fear I must"? But I think the publishing info is worth working in somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree too and haven't had a chance to look at the other edits. I've rejigged a little, moved publishing info from the note to the text, deleted the duplicate section (kept some), split some paragraphs, etc, diff. Does that work? Victoriaearle (tk) 00:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, couldn't finish what I started, but now restored Chawton section. There are more details to expand that section but I think it should be kept to biographical info and presented in summary style. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot has been replaced in with recent edits, which is nothing more than slow edit warring, and it's too much work for me repair, to disentangle text from separated refs, remove duplicate material, etc. If someone can help, that would be nice. Unwatching for now. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)