Talk:Wuthering Heights/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge from Wuthering Heights (fictional location)

I have doubts Wuthering Heights (fictional location) passes WP:NFICTION. The short paragraph on how it got its name, based on a newspaper article, can be merged here. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the location's article is very short and can easily be merged here. I am not conceding that the location is not notable or that it could not one day have its own article, but right now a merging is suitable. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the comments above. I wonder what the main contributor of the Wuthering Heights article @WickerGuy: thinks about this? Aza24 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the topic is notable as the home itself is a main character of the book and films. The page has enough material. Wuthering Heights is one of the main "house" locations in literature and film history. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, nothing here that is beyond what should be in the main article for the novel, and lacks content and sources to show sufficient notability to require a separate page. EdwardUK (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• If a merge occurs let's make sure that the full page is merged and not just a one-sentence summary as often occurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I will try and complete the merge. Rwood128 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Four editors doesn't seem near enough for a decision to remove a page about one of the premier home locations in literature and film. More input should be sought from at least the film projects if not a full RfC, which may also add more editors to add to or polish the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Since this page was created twelve years ago as a stub virtually no work has been done on it, other than the addition of two poor-quality trivial references. No doubt a viable article could be created in years to come, given the amount of scholarly work that has been done on the book, but the book article is the place to build up sections on characters, places, themes etc, not a stand-alone article that no-one is apparently interested in. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, in view of MichaelMaggs's comment, I can so no reason for delaying this, especially as there are editors who are keen on improving the main article. Rwood128 (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Readers seem interested, averaging 57 views a day for the last 20. Still think a wider spectrum of editors knowing about it could help expand it (and not at all opposed to covering the home and moors well on the book page too, so edit away), and that it is important as a stand-alone 'character' type of page. The iconic home and moors, so aligned with the personality of Heathcliff, and the solace and joy experienced on the rock outcropping, don't need a large page but one that captures the essence of the setting. Since the plot is being trimmed back makes the house article a little more important as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The location article is in fact tagged "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline". Rwood128 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Point is that many readers likely come to the location page from the 1939 film page and may not want to wade through the larger article about the book. They come to find a shorter article about the home and moors. I'd ask that since attention is being given to editing the book plot that editors consider improving the page about the location at the same time. Since some editors are going to trim and polish, let's include working on and improving the location page as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Filming location details should be available on the film page I would have thought. I don't find the film argument at all persuasive as the current article relates to the fictional location. If something is needed about real-life locations, perhaps have a page like Representations of Wuthering Heights in film. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just properly read the location article for the first time. It's awful and should simply be deleted. I cannot see its point. Yes, if the discussion of the location on the main page ever becomes excessively long ... but ... .Rwood128 (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Just read it again after your comment and find it interesting and adds to understanding of the story. We have differing experiences reading it, as will people coming to the page. The potential to add more would be to expand it to cover the moors and the "castle" crag, where much of the physical and emotional action takes place. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

57 daily views does not seem a lot compared to the 4,300 the main article gets - (although I wonder how many are maintenance editors checking the pages rather than reading them) - and after merging a redirect could link to the specific section rather than the top of the article EdwardUK (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely, Randy Kryn, there is now a consensus on this topic? Rwood128 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just checked, and nobody has left a note on the talk pages of the three WikiProjects noted at the top of this page, which is usually done in situations where two or more points of view are making good arguments. I'll do it tomorrow if nobody has before that, and also ask for their assistance on improving the site page. That should expand the number of editors knowing about this merge proposal. The lead of the site page is one of the best descriptions I've read about the book or the film, it captures the film very well. The lead alone is worth keeping, and if the page is expanded to the moors and the crag at the same level of descriptor writing and editing as the lead it could be quite the page. As for views a day, I don't think maintenance bots come close to that number. Many pages receive one or five or no views a day, so I wonder how many maintenance visits the average page gets per week. 57 viewers is a pretty good number, especially for those who are fortunate enough to read the entire lead and get a quality summary of the essence and power of this book and film. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There already is consensus for the merge. Consensus does not mean 'unanimity', and one editor who disagrees should not determine what happens. If you ask a single dissenting editor what they think should happen they will always - in good faith here of course - call for more or more extensive discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The notifying of interested WikiProjects when there are multiple points of view is a normal route of discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right about consensus MichaelMaggs, but let's close this discussion and forget the minor article. It is just a pointless waste of energy arguing with a stonewalling editor in such cases. Rwood128 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll remove the merge banner in 48 hours, unless anyone objects. Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As there has been no response I will remove the banner shortly. Rwood128 (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Wuthering Heights references

Perhaps the sections here should be merged with the existing articles to avoid duplication – and these sections removed from the Wuthering Heights article. My concern is wasted effort. Some items have been added here and not on the main article, and the reverse. This may be even more complicated in terms of duplication. Rwood128 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is:

1.References in culture

Main article: List of Wuthering Heights references

2.Adaptations

Main article: Adaptations of Wuthering Heights

plus

3. Works inspired by WH

Rwood128 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rwood128 I agree that this article should shed the paragraphs that really belong in the separate articles already existing. That move will let this article focus on the novel and not on its specific influences and references throughout culture since it was written. It is awkward to have a bit on Adaptations in this article, and the full list of them in another article cited above that text. This article tells why these characters have so much influence on culture and the influences on the author to create such a story. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Earnshaw??????????

LOL! What relation was he to them? He was their factotum!

Whovere wrote this has denied themselves a great pleasure as they have obviously never read this masterpiece.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.191.171.10 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Songs...

I just noticed Albert Niiland's cover of the Kate Bush song wasn't mentioned at all even though it is an excellent acoustic version and one of my favourite songs. Check it out! (Excellent book!)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.197.139 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

• "Heavenly Creatures" (1994) a film directed by Peter Jackson and starring Kate Winslett and Melanie Lynskey depicts a perverted and obssesive love affair between two young girls. The basis of their obssession is their mutual inhabitation of a fantasy world populated by lead figurines. While this film is based on a true story much of its content echoes the life of Charlotte and Emile Bronte and the obssessive love and need for revenge demonstrated in "Wuthering Heights".
• In a scene of Cold Mountain, Ada Monroe reads to Ruby Thewes an excerpt of Wuthering Heights.
• Wuthering Heights is often mentioned in the Twilight series (written by Stephenie Meyer) as one of the main character's favorite books.
• Wuthering heights was recently voted the UK's favourite love story of all time by the "Guardian" newspaper in a poll commissioned by UKTV Drama, beating Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" and Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" to the top spot.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.93.106 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Short refs

MichaelMaggs, I used harvnb template inside ref and /ref in the text of the article. How is that altered by what works for sfn template? The announced change is confusing to me, as you see. You explained this in your explanation of the edit here, mentioning only sfn. Another point, does it matter if the full reference begins with cite or citation? --Prairieplant (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've always found the instructions for creating citations extremely long and complicated, and I mostly use sfn as that's the one I've worked out how to use. But as I understand it, sfn and harvnb inline citations are very similar and can link to a variety long-form references at the end, including {{Citation}}, {{Cite book}} and {{Cite web}}. The long-form references have previously included a parameter "|ref=harv" which somebody experienced (can't remember who) told me a while ago can now be left out. I tried it, and that seems correct. I don't know about 'cite' or 'citation'; are they alternative options? MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The {{citation}} and {{cite web}} family of templates should not be mixed in an article as the punctuation is different. Choose one or the other, and stick to it, though you should really stick with the predominant style that the article uses rather than change it. Personally I favour the various {{cite web}} templates as seems more natural punctuation.

The |ref=harv was necessary until the last update to the templates when this need was removed. The only problem is if you have two or more long citations that produce the same target in which case you need to set |ref=none on the ones that are not the target for the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates. Keith D (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that I have fixed most of the incomplete citations. My apologies for not using computer code, but it would taken me a lot longer to get things right following that path.

Can someone fix this awkward entry?

Works of criticism

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Cousin, John William (1910). A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature. London: J. M. Dent & Sons – via Wikisource.

I've removed it - I can't find anything to show it is used - there is only a section on charlotte, which mentions her sisters, but none of it is present in this article EdwardUK (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Keith D. Ref=none is yet more complication! I will use formats for the references in the articles, to keep the format consistent in this article. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is archiving happening so rapidly?

The section just archived, List of Wuthering Heights references, had its last post dated May 28, 2020. Why did the section, which I think of as current and not yet resolved, get archived so rapidly? I thought automatic archiving usually kept a topic around a bit longer than a week or 10 days before archiving. Especially when unsigned and unimportant posts sit there. I suppose I have to find who posted those remarks to get a date on them, so the archive software can clear the page of them. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the Bot archiving began with this here, clearing out the discussions over 10 years old. Now it seems a weekly event? I do not know how to alter the settings on the bot. I generally support archiving on the talk page, but this is too fast. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Edited my own post. And I found the posting date for the 3 unsigned posts, which are now signed and can be safely archived, no one will miss them. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The archive bot was set to 7 days which seemed a bit too often so I've changed it to 30. EdwardUK (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, EdwardUK. A month or more seems more usual for regular archiving. - - Prairieplant (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Further development of the article

My initial impression is that the French article hasn't much to offer and that the Brontë family article may be a more useful source of additional ideas and material. Rwood128 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Rwood128, no, not as much help as I had hoped, but some value in the article in French Wikipedia. An intro to an audio book version describes this as a frame narrative, saying that using it in this novel was new in 19th century novels, a device not familiar to readers of novels. That does not appear in the many strong reactions from the 1847-1848 reviews. Story within a story, part of the device of relating the plot. The wiki article on the technique takes it back to the Bible and never mentions Wuthering Heights as an example of this technique; is that intro to the audio book accurate? I hope there is a reference that describes the structure and this technique, somewhere. The new and better Plot summary reflects the device. - - Prairieplant (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

PS I am writing using my phone, so feel free to add colons so my comments are in the correct starting place. - - Prairieplant (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph of the lead has 8 references that are used nowhere else in the article. Perhaps one or two of them will be useful for new sections? - - Prairieplant (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Prairieplant. Yes the frame story aspect is important (it is briefly mentioned in the Frame story article, while the term Mise en abyme is used in the French article on WH, under narrative technique). I'm gathering stuff and will try and gradually work on improving the article. Rwood128 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

These points mentioned in the lede, "religious hypocrisy, morality, social classes and gender inequality", look useful.Rwood128 (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at references, there are four names in short ref style, but no long reference to match them. Drabble, Johnson, Doody, Barker are the names. I did not find them in the French article, so I do not know where else to look to get a long ref in the Bibliography section. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect I may be guilty here. Will check.Rwood128 (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's odd. I wondered if there might be information in the edit history, and used the WikiBlame tool (from the revision history page) to search for addition of the text "Drabble" as an example. Surprisingly, it tells me the reference was first added recently, in this edit by Rwood128. Not sure about the others but Drabble (1985) must be a reference to the Oxford Companion to English Literature. There is an entry on p 105 covering Blackwood's Magazine, but it does not support what is stated in the text. Maybe another edition does, but my edition is dated 1985. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The Drabble came with material from Brontë family. I have 1995 revised edition (second impression 1996) of The Oxford Companion and will check and supply revised pages. I appreciate the efficiency of this "combo". Rwood128 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I find reference to Blackwood's Magazine under "Charlotte", p,136 "Oxford Companion". I'll try and make revisions asap.Rwood128 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed this source from the lead, replacing it with one used in the article in the Publication section (Wiltshire 2005). It seems to be a teacher's syllabus from City University of New York in Brooklyn, with different pages dated from 2009 to 2011. It may have useful ideas on the many pages, but does not seem to be notable source.

Plus I took out this string of references, also in the lead, to the same source. They followed another source (Eagleton 2005). Perhaps the topic of references appropriate for the lead can be taken up later, but these are not used in the article, and the lead seems an odd place for a source to appear, and never cited in the article.

Re your query, Prairieplant, about "Wynne-Davies, Marion, ed. (1990). " 'Wuthering Heights'. The Bloomsbury Guide to English Literature. Toronto: Prentice Hall". There is a list that includes: originator, editor, contributors and advisers. So it seems to me better just to cite Wynne-Davies. Rwood128 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC) –– Drabble is a similar case. Rwood128 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, great. References are set until the article grows yet more. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rwood128, this link here has Virginia Woolf’s review of Wuthering Heights. It says Woolf’s review is public domain so there may be better places to find Woolf’s review. - - Prairieplant (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

References

References

Affection and Restraint

This proposed new section, Selina761, lacks substance and should anyhow go under "Love". It didn't add anything of significance to the article. Rwood128 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Item in lead, no longer in article

Rwood128, this change Here to Wuthering Heights leaves a quote about the book in the lead, but nowhere in the article. The lead is supposed to be highlights of the article, and not a place to find unique information. If you only want to see it once, then how about taking it out of the lead and leaving it in the text, the section on Critical Response, Early reviews (1847–1848)? I am guessing you do not consider the quote by Dante Gabriel Rossetti to be a highlight of the article, or a highlight about the novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Critical response

Arn't there too many examples of contemporary reviews? Also, nothing for the 20th century and no real attention to academic criticism, or the views of other novelists. I will try and help. Rwood128 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rwood128: I somewhat inadvertently involved myself with the article after being outraged by the disgraceful state of it. I somewhat cursorily added some 21st century things from simply googling "best novels" or something and expecting what I then inserted. This was very much because there was much and only contemporaneous reviews. For more proper information I very willingly allow you to take over, even if only because I am purblind for the next four weeks or so and should not really be even writing this. Untitled50reg (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks (User talk:Untitled50reg, for all your recent work on the article, and I hope that you will come back, after you have rested your eyes. In the mean time I'll try and do something to further improve it. Rwood128 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rwood128: PS, I am not going to check, but Virginia Woolf very likely said something about WH in the 20th c. which is probably in the public domain if not readily available somewhere. Untitled50reg (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I had forgotten the discussion above. Rwood128 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rwood128: Until my comments herein I had entirely ignored the talk page. But now I have looked and am glad that there is allegedly a whole review written by Woolf. I am also aware now that I have branded a disgrace what may have been largely your work. But for that I will clarify that the brand pertained to what was missing and is still missing (for example themes and critical etc, and you agree here). Untitled50reg (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Untitled50reg, I haven't done that much (enough) editing of this article, which is below standard for a great novel – but this is true for a number of literary articles here, unfortunately. Thanks again. Rwood128 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)