|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robinson Crusoe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Novels||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Fictional characters||(Rated C-class)|
|Robinson Crusoe has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 25, 2004, April 25, 2005, April 25, 2006, April 25, 2007, April 25, 2008, April 25, 2009, and April 25, 2010.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 year may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would appreciate any comments over at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superlusertc 2007 December 23, 08:37 (UTC)
another possible source
In the spanish article, you can read that a possible source to the novel is the real story of Pedro Serrano, a castaway who lived during 4 years in a desert island. In his travels to spain, DeFoe could have heared or read about his story. And if you read the Comments that Garcilaso de la Vega "El Inca" wrote about the story of Pedro Serrano, you can see parallel facts between the novel and the real story, for example when Robinson believes that the Devil is in the island.
Cleanup needed as of 9/16
Reading through this article I became very annoyed at the redundant and repetitive theories of who and what was the real inspiration for the tale. These are located in many sections throughout the article, sometimes repeated word-for-word (especially that of Alexander Selkirk). They should only be listed in the intro and under 'Sources', the latter of which should also probably be merged with the 'Real-life Castaways' section. While I could do this on my own, I'd rather someone a bit more qualified handle it for quality reasons. Mousenight (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Extra-plot matter in synopsis
A thoughtful editor removed some matter from the synopsis section that I have reinstated - although the edit was in good faith. General remarks about modern fiction do not really apply here - RC was written at a time when "realistic" prose fiction (at least in English) was very new indeed - and the book actually purports to be factual, and is to a large degree based on real events, so generalisations appropriate to modern fiction do not really apply.
On the other hand, several editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the general layout of the article - could it be improved perhaps with a general reorganisation - including perhaps a separation of the retelling of the basic story and commentary? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- The section I edited has the specific purpose of summarizing the plot, not calling out any real events that (supposedly) inspired it. Furthermore, the claims that I removed are not cited to sources where those claims appear. As such, they appear to be original research and it is legitimate to remove them as such. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- No worries - just thought we needed to clarify just why the changes were being made. The whole article is a bit of a muddle really when I come to re-read it. Just redo the change - remark on the edit summary that this is "following discussion on talk" or words to that effect. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Spurious reference to "Queen's Dock"
The plot summary currently states:
The problem is that the Dock was not built until 1775-1778, over 125 years after the narrative of the novel, and over 55 year after it was published. Certainly the original text only refer to Crusoe leaving Hull in general. I shall correct the text accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)