Talk:The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
July 14, 2010 Good article nominee Listed

Spelling[edit]

In my copy of the book, the name is spelled with a lowercase w -- that is, "Mrs. Tiggy-winkle." I figured I'd mention it in case someone felt the entry here should be updated...

Toy store in Ottawa, Canada[edit]

In 'Other appearances', mention should be made that a chain of toy stores in Ottawa is called 'Mrs Tiggy Winkle's.' Grandma Roses (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbing and proposed reorganization[edit]

Having glanced at this article my sense is that it needs a thorough scrub in the manner of The Story of Miss Moppet. I'll work my way, slowly, through the sources available on-line to verify and rewrite as necessary, and will also add more scholarly information from Humphrey Carpenter's book about Victorian children's literature with critical commentary. At a quick glance, I don't see a need for the repetitive information in the background section - I think the current production section can be called "Background and production". Also, I'd like to research the illustrations as Johnbod suggested in the GA review. Comments? Thoughts? Will this need another GA review when done, or can we simply invite the reviewer (Malleus) to have a look at the changes? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree and thank you for your work on this. I have Dubay and can work on Merchandise. I only added back the images that were in when it made GA. SInce Derwentwater is not mentioned in the book, I am not sure why there need to be two images of it here. Squirrel Nutkin, maybe. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, wondered if you still have Dubay. The organization doesn't follow the novels MoS at all, and much too much background. The information about the illustrations is lost, and I have more scholarly comments to add. If you don't mind, the Peter Rabbit cover might not make the cut, I'm really thinking that entire section has to go. I seem to be in a mood to reorganize articles, so I'll probably just start shoving text around, but won't get to it tomorrow. I finally have a free day tomorrow and it's too cold to do much else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and cut it - I uploaded it for the The Tale of Peter Rabbit (and think it belongs there). I photographed Dubay for personal use when I had it via ILL. I wondered if other images from the book might work better in the article, but don't have any suggestions. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I've cut, reorganized, and moved around the images. Not much more I can do until I have the biographical sources - except adding a bit to the criticism section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I've checked Linda Lear's book out and have started rewriting/ scrubbing. What a mess! I'm afraid Norman Warne has to be deleted and perhaps Frederick Warne & Co as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Making a list so I don't forget what I've done:
  • MacDonald - copyvio removed; Delete what cannot be verified?
  • Linder - reworded found copyvio; deleted some portions unable to verify. Delete what's left for now?
  • Lear - copyvio removed
  • Kutzer - copyvio removed
  • Taylor (1987)- copyvio removed
  • Taylor (1986) - no copyvio
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - will try to work on Merchandise section this weekend, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Busy work week coming up for me, but next weekend I'll try to get the Taylor books from the library and finish with those. I'm thinking when this is done, Malleus should maybe have look since he was the GA reviewer. What do you think? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, all of Potter's original book artwork is owned by the National Trust except for these three: Peter Rabbit is owned by Frederick Warne & Co., The Tailor of Gloucester is owned by the Tate Gallery, and the Flopsy Bunnies is owned by the British Museum. Source is pp. 208–11 of Taylor, Judy (1996) [1986]. Beatrix Potter: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman. Frederick Warne. ISBN 0-7232-4175-9. . Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to have that information. When I'm back at this I'll copy it over to the Beatrix Potter page, and the other articles as I work on them. This one has been difficult to fix, requiring a lot of restructuring, so definitely will need Malleus to give it a look over when it's done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am trying to follow the model of Miss Moppet - found one very close paraphrase so far, plus places where Dubay was not read carefully and things were missed (Wedgwood made only one of its annual Birthday plates which did not feature Peter Rabbit - it had Mrs. TW instead)(Need to add that). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I am done with Merchandise and was going to work on Reprints and translations over the next day or two - looking on WorldCat there are a number of translations not mentioned in the article that I can add. Hopefully Merchandise reads OK. Not sure if the last paragraph should be combined with the next to last one. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I combined and the paras and looked at them in preview mode; I think it's fine as is. The Wedgewood para is only about Wedgewood, whereas the previous para is about a variety of companies. I doubt I'll get to the library for the Taylor books until Friday, so that will have to wait. Might start on one of the other articles while I have the Lear and Carpenter book. We're getting there - slowly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've copied over the information about the artwork to Beatrix Potter. That's a useful bit of information; thanks for posting it here. If the weather's not too bad, I'll go to the library tomorrow for the Taylor books and finish here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I have access to Taylor's Beatrix Potter: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman (although it is the 1986 edition), so I will check those. I can also get refs for the film and TV series (currently unreferenced). I know the film is in the Taylor book. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I picked it up at the library, the 1986 edition. I just ran out of steam & got a little frustrated. The entries are a weird combination of direct copyvio/plagiarism and material that's not in the source. I didn't think deleting a few pieces harmed the article much. I'll take a swing through quickly with other Taylor. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I just realized she used the 1986 edition and the 1996 edition. I've verified the piece from the 1986 edition. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I added refs for the film and tv show. There are two things I am not sure about adding. I found a brief notice in The Times that on July 30, 1980 Mrs TW was presented on the BBC 2 children's show Play School by Floella Benjamin and Chris Tranchell. The 1986 edition of Taylor mentions the film (p. 214, but not Mrs. TW in it) and mentions that "in 1985 the Wildlife Hospitals Trust opened the St. Tiggywinkle's Hedgehog Unit at their hospital in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire" (p. 217). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Spelling II[edit]

The title is spelled "Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle" (capital W), but in the text the name is spelled "Mrs. Tiggy-winkle" (lower case w), which is how Potter spelled the name of the character and of her pet. Direct quotations should follow the capitalization of the source. The question I have is how to capitalize the name in the article when it is not a direct quote? My preference is to follow the title, but I can see using the Potter spelling too. I can even see using the lower case w spelling in the plot (as the book does) and capital W elsewhere. I have Taylor's 1986 and Lear's books from the library. Lear seems to refer to the book as TW and the character as Tw, while Taylor uses Tw for both. Thanks to Malleus for reverting my attempt to standardize the capitalization. What is the consensus for cpaitalization? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Just in the lead, the book is consistently TW, but the character is both Tw and TW. The more I think about it, perhaps TW for the book and Tw for the character would be best? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was the way we had it (TW for the book and Tw for the character), but I see that there was some inconsistency particulary in the image captions. I think that's evidently the correct approach, and I'd even go so far as to suggest that we ought to change the quotation at the end of the Scholary commentaries to match. Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I completely missed this issue (not much of a detail person) so may have introduced some of the inconsistencies in the rewriting. I'll have a look, but TW for book and Tw for character is fine with me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucie an unsympathetic character?[edit]

Why exactly is Lucie unsympathetic (and who is she considered unsympathetic by?) Is there some neatnik editing this page who thinks she is hateful because she keeps losing things? I will remove this material, and it should not be put part in the article unless someone can come up with substantial critical commentary backing up the claim that Lucie is widely considered unlikable.174.93.24.28 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commented it out. Either it's a remnant from an earlier version or the citation and attribution has been lost. Either way, until it's cited (and attributed) it shouldn't be there. Thanks for mentioning. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)