text:
Talk:David Copperfield

50+ characters
There are over 50 characters introduced in the novel. It is often difficult to keep them straight (although not as difficult as War and Peace which has over 500). This is known in literary parlance as a "crowded novel".

Our Wikipedia article would be of real value to the reader if it listed the characters (perhaps in order of appearance) along with a short contexual summary of who they are and where known from. I'm not sure I have the time or resources, but will consider it, but would be a wonderful project for someone so inclined. It may even allready be on the web somewhere. Stbalbach 21:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Found a list of characters online. Linked in the Resources section. Stbalbach 21:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to have a more visual helpful presentation of characters to the reader, i.e. a diagram of important characters with their relationships to David Copperfield. I shall put in the work to produce that. Spoowy (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the visual representation (although in bad handwriting). It would be nice if it were transformed into a digital diagram. David Copperfield Characters.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin Flaming (talk • contribs) 12:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I amaze the tendency of Mr. Murdstone why he often busy in beating both David's mother and him Nishant jannz (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

errors
This article contains numerous errors. As far as I can tell, Dora Spenlow never suffered a miscarriage, Dr. Strong was not a medical doctor, and did not attend to Dora during the supposed miscarriage. Someone who actually read this book should do a cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.188.246 (talk • contribs).

Dora did suffer a miscarriage, from which she never recovered her health. Don't remember anything about Dr. Strong attending on Dora, but it's a large book and I may have forgotten. --Miczilla (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They weren't explicit about miscarriages in those days. The pregnancy and miscarriage are described in chapter 48: "But, as that year wore on, Dora was not strong. I had hoped that lighter hands than mine would help to mould her character, and that a baby-smile upon her breast might change my child-wife to a woman. It was not to be. The spirit fluttered for a moment on the threshold of its little prison, and, unconscious of captivity, took wing. "PatConolly (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Merging David Copperfield (character) into this article

 * Oppose
 * Oppose. This fictional character is important enough to merit his own article in Wikipedia. The article on the character, however, should be cleaned up and dealt with by an expert.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose although such characters start their life in the novel the character takes a slightly independant life as further adaptations are created. The independant article is then able to discuss the subject beyond the confines of the originating novel. Not often done but there is reason for such articles. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  07:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. David Copperfield the character deserves his own character-based article. The Catcher in the Rye gives Holden Caulfield his standalone article, a novel which is also written from a first-person perspective. The character's own article can give useful information relating to emotions, thoughts and author construction of that particular character. -- Gbrading 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Support
 * Support. David Copperfield (character) refers to the main character of David Copperfield (novel). As the main character is fictional and the book acts as a biography, any information that is relevant to the main character is relevant to the book. As the article stands now, it is simply a rehash of the plot that already exists in the novel article. Allow me to draw parallels to other similar cases in the encyclopedia to better illustrate my point: neither Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, nor Jane Austen's Pride and prejudice, have articles devoted to their main characters (Jane Eyre and Elizabeth Bennett).  This is because everything that can be known about such characters is contained within the book they were created in. I would like to suggest that simply being the main character in a significant literary work is not sufficient to warrant that character their own article, they must have had some other form of existence, either being used in other works, or being based on historical figurer etc.Treesus 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Treesus. Further the "what links here" suggests the article is not being used much to justify a split - it is content that would be better served in the main article where more people would be likely to see it. -- Stbalbach 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Stbalbach's "what links here" argument is compelling along with other precedents such as Jane Eyre.
 * Support. As per above Windymilla 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Treesus--*Kat* 06:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Treesus -- Itsmejudith 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Treesus. The character article has only 5 articles linking to it, one of which is the novel article, the other WP:PM (where I found this). Content would be more useful here. xC | ☎  15:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the merge suggestion tag (October 2, 2007). There was no new discussion created by the September 4, 2007 tag addition, and this discussion is extremely old. Please don't add merge tags unless you start/add to the discussion, and please remove the tag (merge or no) within some reasonable period of time. 'In this case, it looks like there was'' enough support for a merge if someone had cared to do it. Doctormatt 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)''' (emphasis added Rwood128 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC))

 * Is it worth re-opening this discussion? Personally I don't see the point of the separate article on the character David Copperfield (character). The above suggests that this should have been done before now. Rwood128 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved my confusing comments down to the Assessment comment Section on this Talk page -- Talk:David Copperfield. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The above comments are confusing because they starts with a discussion of the start class article on the character David Copperfield and then seem to switch to comparing the article on the novel with two later novels, Great Expectations or Our Mutual Friend. I don't see the point of expanding the article on the character and suggests that the articles should be merged. Rwood128 (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a consensus, though it wasn't acted upon and many years have elapsed. Rwood128 (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Also, the various articles on other characters are trivial. Rwood128 (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: both moved. Favonian (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

– There are two criteria for determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While the novel fails the usage test, being somewhat, but not "much more likely" to be the topic sought (compared to the illusionist), there is no question that its long-term significance is overwhelmingly greater. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * David Copperfield (novel) → David Copperfield
 * David Copperfield → David Copperfield (disambiguation)

 * Oppose I prefer having the disambiguation page as primary. As there is no much more likely topic, a disambiguation page is pretty useful, since there's more than two articles in any case. 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not a big fan of the all-too-often-misused "educational value" exception, but this is exactly the situation it was created for. If anyone doubts that the Dickens' novel is the educational topic here, take a look at the first page of hits on Google Books -- every result refers to the Dickens' novel. The novel got 156,329 page views in the last 90 days, while the illusionist got 142,561. I note that as the illusionist is not currently primary topic, this proposal would have no effect on his article. Kauffner (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is exactly the kind of situation the long-term significance criteria in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was written for. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." It's also worth repeating that the novel is indeed the most often sought topic with this title, even if not "much more" often, as noted in the proposal. BlindMic (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As Kauffner points out, this is the proper use of the educational value -- we'll minimize surprise. Readers looking for the illusionist should not be surprised to land at the novel first, while readers looking for the novel might well be surprised to land anywhere else. And the hatnote on the novel article could point both to the illusionist and to the disambiguation page (otherwise the illusionist seekers would be slightly affected, by landing on one page and having to load another before finding the correct link). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but only if the illusionist is mentioned directly in the hatnote. Otherwise, I oppose.  Powers T 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: The novel clearly has the most long-term significance. — Bility (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bold for the full title in the lede
Do we have to slavishly follow common practice? A basic tenet of WP is that rules can be broken, if they get in the way. The lede in particular should focus the eye on important matters, not trivial clutter. The use of bold here makes it seem that the sub-title is the most important fact in the lede. Rwood128 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC).

 * There is no reason to change it for this one book. The full title (it is not a subtitle) is not "trivial" and it being in bold lettering does not change the focus of the lede nor does it cause any distraction to the readers eye. You may want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT as that is what your argument seems to boil down to. MarnetteD|Talk 14:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the mis-use of emphasis that I don't like. Clearly it doesn't distract you, but try and think of an average reader. None of my reference works think it worth mentioning. Rwood128 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly it distracts you but please don't presume to speak for the "average reader" until you can provide empiric evidence about what they think. In the spirit of that I have struck my comment about readers above. If you had read WP:IDONTLIKEIT you would know that is not a reason to change things in this articles lede section. I am not sure what reference works you have (and the fact that they don't mention it is not a reason to remove the bold lettering) but all of mine mention the full title. It is on the cover artwork in the infobox. It should also be noted that just because it is long is also not a reason to ignore common practice. One further thing to note is that this book isn't the only item with a long title that is in bold lettering in Wikipedia articles. MarnetteD|Talk 15:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My tone above is somewhat condescending, sorry, it could have been phrased better. I'm not saying that the full title should not be mentioned anywhere. Rwood128 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Re my recent edit, I've just noticed this earlier (forgotten) discussion. Hope the change is acceptable. Rwood128 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 * PS: I now realise that it was the length of the full title here that caused my reaction, as I don't have the same problem with the titles of other of Dickens's novels! Rwood128 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 * It is fine to have an article on the character in my view. But this article on the novel is Start Class, with just 3 inline citations. There is a short list of sources in the Bibliography, but they are not used to discuss the novel. This article has characters and plot, which are reasonably good, the too-often repeated line about this being autobiographical of the author's life, not so much about the character's life. There is no summary of the initial reviews of this novel, or the reviews in following decades and centuries. In short, none of the richness of the articles about two later novels, Great Expectations or Our Mutual Friend. Is there a flag to put in the article, about wanting more about its literary reception, themes, any social commentary, quality of the characters, and so on?  --Prairieplant (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article in French about this novel is detailed, perhaps a source to enhance this article?--Prairieplant (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC) [Do you mean the main article? Rwood128 (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC) ]
 * I apologize for putting my remark in an illogical place, . I meant to say that the French Wikipedia article on the novel David Copperfield https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield has more extensive discussion of the novel and might be a start for expanding the English article on the novel David Copperfield. It has a long list of inline references and at the top, it is called un article de qualité, an article of quality (literally), which seems to be a top class article in French Wikipedia. I moved both comments down to the section Assessment comments below, at the end of the Talk page. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree; the French article is more comprehensive, far better written, and better sourced than the English one.Straw Cat (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - I still don't believe this would necessitate having an expand French tag. In my experience, expand tags are for foreign language topics that only have a stub-type article and need expansion. This article is sufficiently long and detailed, far longer than the average article by my approximation. The fact that there is a better article somewhere does not mean we should have an unsightly maintenance tag on the article. Having the discussion here is more than sufficient - if someone wants to fix it they can, this suggestion has been here for years. I didn't take it out again but I don't think it belongs. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the tag should be removed–because no one seems willing to incorporate material from the French article. However, it isn't "sufficiently long and detailed": it consists almost entirely of plot summary and descriptions of characters. Unless there is some response from other editors i'll delete. Rwood128 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm going to attempt to use the French article, with the help of Google translate. The assistance of other editors would be most helpful! There appears to be a wealth of valuable material in the French article, though my French is very limited. Rwood128 (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to assist. Great novels that have been much discussed warrant more substantial articles in Wikipedia. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Prairieplant, your offer is most encouraging. I am working on Des fragments d'autobiographie, which is the first section under Genèse du roman. Rwood128 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * that is a good place to start. Will you translate and then post to the article, or first put it on a sandbox page? Anyway, I just read that section, and it is good, with so many references, using major books in English about Dickens, and including page numbers, using the short reference system, linking to the book's full title in another section. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prairieplant, I hope to add a short addition to the article shortly. Rwood128 (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant I'm thinking of trying "Symbolism" next. The autobiography section certainly was time consuming. What sections do you think are most important to start on? Rwood128 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about the quality of the "Symbolism" section, though that may be, in part at least, a problem with Google's translating– and my French is meagre. Anyhow I have now downloaded an article in English on this topic. Prairieplant have you looked closely at the French article, which seems to be Article de qualité? Rwood128 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Read in French, the symbolism section seems good to me. Perhaps you have read other sources about the symbolism used in the novel? The translation needs a good eye, as google translate uses "historical" when the sentence means "in the story" or "in the plot" or "in the novel", and leitmotif never ends in "ve" in English use, as we do not change endings for gender of a noun. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , How do you want to handle references? Wait until the text is brought over? I could use cite format after you translate, but then I expect some author will be cited often, and need short ref linking to a full ref with a good list of Sources for the full refs, for example Schlicke. As you choose, either way is fine with me. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's v. good to have your participation Prairieplant, especially as you can read French. I may have over-reacted to the oddities of Google Translate. I can read French at a basic level with the help of a dictionary, so I'll focus more on the errors in Google.

Do what you like with the citation formatting, I can only handle the most basic style. I did not read anything on symbolism in David Copperfield until I took a quick glance at two articles yesterday. This suggested that the Frech article could be improved on. Thanks again for the helpful advice. Rwood128 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Is anyone working on translating the French article, or have any suggestions on the most important sections that might be translated? Rwood128 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The next section in the French article is La poésie du « je » and that might be good. One word in there takes some thought, décantation. Decantation in English gets only the chemist's meaning. But Larousse French dictionary gives the French term the meaning of simplifying something or simplifying a situation in addition to those chemistry and wine-making meanings. I cannot think of another word in its place, and the word "simplicity" is already in the sentence. Maybe that is enough. By that, I mean the google translation is pretty good for this section, until it hits that word, décantation. I will work on references but not until Monday, too tired right now. The Symbolism section is very good. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant thanks for your kind comments on the "symbolism" section. I'm not clear as o whether you plan to continue working on La poésie du « je », or if you are suggesting that it should be the next one that I attempt? It is certainly a great help to know that there is at least one other set of eyes taking an interest. Rwood128 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am hesitating to put the translation up myself, I guess, which is why I did not make it clear. I think you do a better job, and you have other sources at hand, if you want to see if the French article is up to date. Right now, I think I should get to the reference formats. I need to brush up on the short/long reference format, for sources often cited; the rest of formatting, I have that memorized. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prairieplant for the encouragement, and the earlier comment re décantation. I'll continue working on this and leave any revision of reference formatting to you. Rwood128 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant I've just noticed that the French article on The Old Curiosity Shop is much fuller than the English article. I have tagged it, even though I'm uncertain of its quality. Rwood128 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead of article
, I deleted the sentence at the end of the lead again, for the reason given in the edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Copperfield&diff=842731093&oldid=842437673. This article includes plot summary, characters described by so much more plot, publication history of the serial editions, and a bit more, but nothing that analyzes the plot, central themes of the novel, nature of the social commentary. The lead is meant to summarize or highlight the article. The sentence that was deleted was essentially Original Research for this article, as there is no text in the article to back it up. I hope that is clear. And also clear that this article is in need of sections that yield a thorough analysis of the novel; I posted a comment about how someone might start by translating the extensive article in French about this novel. I do hope that answers your objection, when you reverted. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you refer me to any referenced sources for the sections of the article like Plot Summary and Characters, which at the moment seem also to be original research. Then we can deal with the lead, which of course is supposed to summarize the main article. The bit you object to simply is a summary of material already in the article, in particular para. 2 of the plot summary, and is a description, not an analysis. If you continue to revert this as original research, you must tackle the parts of the article which it summarizes. By the way, I have a degree in English Literature. If you can't agree, rather than edit warring, I think we are going to have to go through the usual channels.Straw Cat (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you are new to articles about novels, books of fiction in Wikipedia? The plot summary is written by editors relying on the primary source, the novel. See WP:PLOTSUM especially the Citations section in that article. See also MOS:PLOT, which is part of the larger guideline on writing about fiction in Wikipedia MOS:WAF. The character list and the plot summary are the only parts of an article about a novel, a piece of fiction, that do not rely on secondary sources. The acronym MOS means Manual of Style in Wikipedia, and constitutes the guidance for writing articles on various topics.
 * The remark I removed from the lead twice now is the kind of statement to find in a secondary source, someone writing, and publishing their writing, about Dickens and all his novels or this novel in particular, and mention it in a section of the article other than the Plot summary or character list. Then the statement can be mentioned in the lead, if indeed it is a highlight of what others say about that novel and its author's intentions. As this article is just a start class article (of top importance), with little beyond the Plot summary and characters, there is not much to write in the lead now. When the article is expanded to show the notability (another point in MOS:WAF) then the lead will look quite different. The article on his novel Great Expectations had a group of editors who took advantage of the article in French Wikipedia, which greatly expanded the English article, and in my view improved it. The lead for that article is based on what is in the article, and is several paragraphs long, mentioning the plot, the literary reception of the novel at its publication and later, and themes and motifs. Please do not add that sentence back again! I have no interest in either an edit war or an article that has unsourced statements in the lead. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Things have now moved on a bit: scholarly material about the crucial child abuse and exploitation theme in the novel has been added to the article, the source and attribution improved by other editors, and has been summarized at the beginning.
 * There are a few points you may find helpful here (as well as checking out WP:IDONTLIKEIT which seems to be an issue here). Firstly, although many of Dickens's novels are about children, they are not children's books, and contain many explicit, harrowing and frightening passages including graphic descriptions of violence: although expurgated versions have been published for children, that is not the version WP is dealing with. The present English article's plot description is embarrassing. It seems to be written in a style suitable for 12-year-olds. The addition of material which reminds us that the book explicitly deals with abuse and prostitution of young people, amongst the flowery guff about eccentric and temperamental yet kind-hearted great-aunts, may be shocking, and some people may rather prefer it was not mentioned at all (we have been having some issues with that point of view amongst the authorities here in Britain and Ireland over the past few years).
 * I don't know if you have ever heard of a recently deceased writer and journalist called Tom Wolfe. He is most famous for a novel, later filmed, The Bonfire of the Vanities. He popularized a movement called The New Journalism. If you read the book he wrote under that title, you will see that he credited Dickens with inventing a campaigning fiction based on closely observed fact (you may not know that Dickens was originally a journalist).
 * You may not know, unless you have read biographies, that Dickens intended nearly all his books to also be campaigns against various abuses. One of these was child prostitution, and he started a charity to try to deal with this with an heiress called Angela Burdett-Coutts. David Copperfield, which he wrote at around the same time, has an important plot line about this, and also one about child labour. The novel is in fact famous for it. I was astonished that this was only coyly mentioned in the plot summary, and missing from the lead.
 * Now, what you are also missing is that I do totally agree with you about the French article. It is so superior to the English article that it's in another league (and you mention that it has been recognized as such). It's so good that I agree that the best thing we can do is gradually translate it over and expand this article, as has been done with Great Expectations. When we have done that, you may find you're no longer so put out by the new material I added. Straw Cat (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am glad you got all that off your chest. I do hope an editor takes on the task of the translation, so readers can learn more about the scope of analysis of this novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel better now. Straw Cat (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, after a pause of six months, I find that Prairieplant is edit-warring to keep removing exactly the same content from the lead, despite it being thoroughly discussed above back in May. Once again, I'd ask him or her to address the sources above.Straw Cat (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 * this is not an edit war, unless that is what you want. The article on David Copperfield needs significant expansion. Right now, your piece on the very different treatment of children in 19th century England, from what I hope are the standards and facts of 21st century England is the only topic besides the plot summary and characters. Your piece is a small topic with I believe one reference. Seeing nearly that entire topic brought up to the lead is a constant reminder to me of how little is in the article, compared to the article in French Wikipedia on this novel. I must admit I forgot about 6 months ago when I reacted as I often do to something that was too much from one short section copied in the lead. The main things about the novel David Copperfield are a much longer list of interesting topics about the complexity of human relationships. You are in love with your phrase exploitation and abuse, and cannot see that exploitation carries the same impression in the lead section.
 * If you have those sources, and agree about the French Wikipedia article, then why not write new sections for this article, so we can move on to new topics for this great book. Have a good day! --Prairieplant (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sections from French Wikipedia
I added the translation template to this Talk page, because sections written in French Wikipedia on this novel are being translated and added to this one. Two sections are added as of today. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

, I started working on the section Accueil, Literary significance and reception, in its four subsections, despite my statement of not trusting myself to do this. I think you do a better job, so I would like you to read it before I do something so daring as add it to the article. I am halfway through now. My real barrier is that my Sandbox page is used up from the only article I started myself. Where can I work on the text, get the Wikipedia marks to make italics, for example, except in a sandbox? Now I am using Word just to get the words right or reasonable in English, turn numbers in citations. Is there a way to get another sandbox, or get back my first one? --Prairieplant (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Prairieplant it's great that you are working on a section.
 * Re Sandboxes, I don't understand why you cannot use your existing Sandbox. Why is it used up? I didn't think that there was a word limit. I'll be happy to read your translation. Rwood128 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See here how my sandbox was the draft of the article on a novel by Alexander McCall Smith. The message up top says it stays that way, though there is a full article independent of my sandbox now, The Minor Adjustment Beauty Salon. I did not know then and still do not know how to start an article without using the sandbox first. More pertinent now, I do not know how to deal with redirect, and see no way to keep on typing there and am open to being educated. Relevant to David Copperfield, I finished once through the Literary significance translation, without benefit of italics and not really able to write a hidden note when I substituted a source because I could not find the information at E Notes, nor find the Cengage book, but there was 1959 journal article at JSTOR. It is a Word document now, needing to be copied where I can put Wikipedia mark ups, and learn how many references need to be added to Bibliography to match a few short citations in the French article. There were some very interesting articles linked to that section, especially a long review of new biogrpahy of Charles Dickens written by Jane Smiley. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prairieplant. Why not delete the redirect–it has no useful purpose? I future you might cut and paste any article that you create straight into Wikipedia. Rwood128 (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now at my talk page is the text for Literary significance. More references than I realized, and fewer of them are the short citations linking to a book in the Bibliography. Some of the refs are wobbly, dead link or a book with no ISBN, and worse, does not come up on a search with its exact title. Cengage, maybe it can be deleted. But first, how does it read? The hardest word for me, intertextuality, turns out to be the title of an English Wikipedia article, explaining what it means in literature. So I linked it, rather than trying to find some simpler word. There are many famous authors mentioned, and their books, and I have not wiki-linked them all. French trivia, "Accueil" means welcome, and it means the reception a book got upon publishing, and elsewhere on the Wikipedia page it means Home, which is what Google translate chose, so I altered that to the more ordinary and longer title in English. That made me laugh. Change as you see fit. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS, yes others told me that, but I do not understand how I start, make a title, claim a page. For another day. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant I see that you have reclaimed your Sandbox. I've had a quick speed read and what you have done is excellent–just an occasional odd sounding phrase. like "David Copperfield has made the happiness of many writers". I will look more closely later, but my first impression is that it's already ready for "publication"–Wikipedia is a work in progress, and what you have done is already far better than much already there! Also you have done a fine job with the references (but I'll check further, later). Rwood128 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I put the text in, immediately following Characters section. I realized that the section referred to the introduction of the whole article, and so I took two paragraphs from that and inserted them as the first two paragraphs of Literary sig in this English version. Paul Davis is described in a note, and he is still listed as emeritus at U of New Mexico. I put the books cited in short citations into the Bibliography. One ref from the French is between live and dead; it still goes to a page title Classic Literature, but not to a page showing text from John Forster's biography of Dickens, which is I think what was found in 2012, instead to the intro page to what is now Thought Co. Classic Literature. I have searched a bit to find the Forster text, but no luck so far. There may be another page showing his text, but at this moment I cannot remember it. I may have already put it in the text, who knows! Please do check the references. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant a valuable addition to the article. Rwood128 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Prairieplant I think that I'll have to give up on La poésie du 'je. The problems are:

(1)The source for the following is wrong: "Garrett Stewart writes that fairy tale magic is the result of the nostalgic subjectivity that is inherent in the autobiographical stance. Here, the 'I' is 'end-to-end carried by the complicity of diction and syntax' ".

(2)The following lacks a citation: "repeated generous diphthongs (eɪ) in faces fade away, but one face, remains, may, face, may; əʊ all along (close, low, O, O, so, close, so, shadows), melting vowels, intonation supported by repeated static tones (face, one, shining, that, turn, see, lamp, I, dear, etc.) and descending melodic falls (fade away, beyond them all, remains, etc.), even in the final prayer (close my life, find thee near me), yet invoking (O Agnes, O my soul) and exclamatory (pointing upwards!).

The end of the novel resembles its beginning: the same succession of short sentences, the same use of the historical present, the same cadences, the same use of 'ellipsis' (of a minimal syntax)".

I've spent a great deal of time trying to find sources. It sounds like Garrett Stewart (correct spelling) but it is not in his brief paragraph on Copperfield in the Cambridge Guide to Dickens. Without quotation 1 in particular the section doesn't make sense. Rwood128 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 * The concept seems so important to the literary types (literary folks, people, I mean), the way Dickens wrote, above and beyond the plot of the story. So much of the praise in that Reviews section (Literary sig) was based on how he wrote, and made a book written with I as the subject, not be boring. I guess it is an esoteric topic, describing the poetry of the writing, and yes, it needs sources that can be found, to have it in the article. That was a lot of work you did! I am sorry it did not pan out.
 * Symbolism, you have done already; I wonder if any other part of the Style of writing / La manière d'écrire section has good enough references to be worth the translation and then move it into the English article. Which section would you think about next?
 * Random comment, I do like the habit in the French article to include the exact English language quote when they are quoting a source originally in English. I did have to remember to remove the google-translate version of the quote, which of course never matched the original in English. Can you follow that sentence of mine? --Prairieplant (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Prairieplant I understood your penultimate sentence. The "Style of writing / La manière d'écrire" section is a good idea, and I'll start on that. I may also try and retrieve something from my work on La poésie du 'je'. Rwood128 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant in case you might be interested I have placed my translation of La poésie du 'je' at the top of my Sandbox page. My version isn't fully coherent, and that may well be the result of my lack of French, but is it possible that it is there in the original? I also don't find Garrett Stewart's prose helpful. Rwood128 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I like your translation. I understand it. The flamboyance of simplicity is a wonderful notion to me. And so is the phrase « the "I" […] is carried through to the end by the complicity of diction and syntax ». I think this is the original English version of the sentence. But whoever wrote it, it is not coming up from google searches. It is in a print book that is not online. Diction means the choice of words by the author. So that makes sense for the compliments from other writers, about this novel. The French text is terse, I think. But it is loaded with these terms of art for analysis of language and poetry, which is why it is terse. Critical analysis says this novel is more than an autobiography, because of its language, using no terms of art in my sentence. A Masters Thesis could make the density of terms of art rise exponentially; it could be worse. Wikipedia wants accuracy and it wants article that can be read by most people fluent in English. I looked up diction, because I use it as a term about pronunciation of words, not selection of words, as an example. Once I knew this other meaning, these sentences made a lot of sense to me. As to the source problem, adding the tag that the words are credited to a source but are not there, is a good resolution until a better idea or better source appears. I like to think the French editors were writing accurately as they could. And the notion conveyed in the French text certainly matches the flow of that Cambridge edition's comments. A JSTOR source popped up in one of my searches, and I am not set up through my library to see the entire article to know if it is useful, but it is all about David Copperfield; it has this url here and the author is Matthew Titolo. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant many thanks for the kind comments but, even ignoring the citation problems, it isn't yet ready. This section of the French article is certainly terse, terse to the point of obscurity. It starts with reference to fairy tales, then jumps without any proper linkage to autobiography, before discussing Dickens's poetic language, again without any guidance for the reader. But I do not believe it should be used unless the citations can be fixed. I'm considering contacting Garrett Stewart by email. Rwood128 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea, . The subsection reads better as part of the whole section on style. And you are right, it jumps about without segues. I like that you have high standards. —Prairieplant (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I put the relevant text from Fabrice Bensimon on my sandbox page here in French and then in English, not much modified from google translate (except to distinguish underage minors from miners of ore & coal. Perhaps we need a better translation for petty bourgeoisie to make Bensimon's point more clearly, and contrast it to the discussion of the peak of literary fame and (popular) celebrity that came with this novel.
 * Davis not Davies, he is described in Note 3. He still has a page at University of New Mexico, but no page in Wikipedia. He wrote about Dickens, a lot, I guess. He is Paul Davis in the French article, and I think I found his middle initial on WorldCat page for his book. I had to restore the text with the first reference to him, so that the following refs did not make error messages. Okay? --Prairieplant (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Prairieplant I was misled by the reference to him as a writer and found Paul B. Davies. Too eager!

Many thanks for getting Fabrice Bensimon's original words, which is a great help in clarify things. I will revise the section. Rwood128 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Prairieplant I agree with the arguments put forward by Fabrice Bensimon and there is no evidence to support the claim made in this section that the "people", as well as the lower-middle class, read Dickens–though Bensimon himself does acknowledge Dickens's fame. I will revise accordingly. Rwood128 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to all of Paul Davis' book on line. here. It has a column on the left side to select the novel, which gives a quick summary, then goes through the plot in order, then a section on criticism. There you can see where Davis "soulignée" the text by Monod, and the French Wiki was using the cite to Davis to cite Monod, as well as the emphasis Davis gave to Monod. I hoped he would have a remark about early reviews, but no luck on that. In the plot summary, there is quotable text on how, yes, these are events similar to his own life, but the fictional events differ in significant details from his own life (his parents were alive, for example), as described on page 90, left hand column. That was a lucky link to find. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this different from the Virginia Woolf quote in the article? "Like Robinson Crusoe and Grimm's Fairy Tales and the Waverly Novels, Pickwick and David Copperfield are not books, but stories communicated by word of mouth in those tender years when fact and fiction merge, and thus belong to the memories and myths of life, and not to its esthetic experience." Virginia Woolf found on this web page. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant I'll try look into this later. Rwood128 (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC) I now have some early reviews to look at, including one from The Times. Rwood128 (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant I hope to have "The way writing" section ready soon. And will look into the early reviews next week. Rwood128 (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant I'll be posting very soon a further translation of sections from the French article. This was somewhat of a struggle. Again I found the original to be vague in places and have indicated this, in one very obvious place. on the translation. In other places my translation is fairly free, and there is a fair amount of copy editing. In a couple of places I cut out difficult sentences. The penultimate section, Satire des mauvais personnages, only has one citation at the end (to Philippe Lançon), though the punctuation of the original (numerous semi-colons) may imply that this citation covers most if not all of the section. Rwood128 (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you have been working. I think you are right about the semicolons meaning the section has one source. Satire is a large aspect of the style of Dickens, so there are likely more sources to add later. Getting text on the screen/page is the main thing, then the next steps become clear. I look forward to reading it. - - Prairieplant (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I found a link to the article by Philippe Lançon, and the article, a review of an exhibit in London about Dickens, is not enough to be the source for all of the Satire des mauvais personnages, in particular, grouping the characters into good and bad, changing and unchanging, and so on. The article does make many comments about Dickens and his writing, and his life, but not that specific analysis. There must be another source for the groupings, perhaps already used in another part of the article? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, Prairieplant, that's a most useful find. The new addition still needs much work–it isn't really in focus.and I don't think that that's entirely due to my lack of French. For instance, the emphasis, I believe, should be on satire rather than irony, because irony and humour are the major tools used by the satirist. Also the subject of sentiment and the relationship between Great Expectations and the novel of sensibility needs attention. The concluding section's discussion of setting is obviousely poor. Rwood128 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , we are getting over my head in the literary world. Valorizarion, (with an s for Brit spelling), a term in the article on novels of sensibility, was a new word to me. Simply meaning to give value to something, for literature? Otherwise it means money value, per various dictionary definitions. But I did recognize much that Dickens did with his writing in that article, give value to people no matter their class. It is interesting to read the Great Expectations article now, with its references back to David Copperfield (on my phone, I cannot find a way to do Wiki italics for book titles), emphasizing how DC is a peak and a point of change at the same time. The DC article is looking way better, even with the need to improve parts that can be clearer or better-sourced. Lançon, by the way, first shows up in a google search as one of the victims in the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris. I think he is alive, I did not pursue that yet. Things one learns while looking for something else. - -Prairieplant (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Prairieplant I have been trying to find a copy of the Penguin David Copperfield, with Trevor Blount's introduction, but with no success. I think it would be useful to be able to read it.

I think that if the words "irony" and "ironist" were replaced with "satire" and "satirist" in the recent addition, it would begin to make better sense–followed with further copy editing.

 *
 *
 * ... with even David himself subjected to the satire that is present throughout this novel. The very principle of satire is to question, and to tear off the masks, so as to reveal the raw reality under the varnish.[44] Dickens use the various literary tools, [especially irony, and comedy], that are available to the satirist, or rather supplied by his narrator, David, who even directs [it at] himself. How satire is employed relates to the characters differing personalities: [It] is thus gentler towards some characters than others; toward David the hero-narrator, [the] satire is at once indulgent and transparent.

Rwood128 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I think you are exactly right, . Here are 3 sources from the web clarifying the terms in English. Good catch.
 * Satire and irony https://literarydevices.net/satire/
 * Journal article https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327868ms0802_2?journalCode=hmet19
 * Wikipedia on satire Satire
 * PS Lançon is alive and well. He wrote a book about his survival, which got two awards. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Prairieplant.
 * , I suspected that French use of the word that looks like irony might match satire in English. Ironie without translating, has many of the aspects listed in the links on Satire in English. While Satire is a briefly described concept applied to an entire book or play. I never heard discussion on this point in my formal education on French literature, which was clearly too short. Is the term ironie a bit of a false friend in discussion of literature? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's most interesting Prairieplant. Thanks for researching this. I'll post my revision shortly. Rwood128 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant I'm starting on "Source et contexte". Hope that's OK with you? Rwood128 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, a good section. I formatted references, and notice the one that is ?. I looked around for possible refs for the necessary elements of Picaresque novels and put what I found in my Sandbox. Do you think one of those is what you are looking for? That intro paragraph is new, right? --Prairieplant (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Prairieplant I must apologize for the way the I handle citations. I've tended to rely on automatic bots that appear to come along and fix things–but I'm trying to reform. Sorry also for the question mark, which isn't a question in this case but a temporary editing tool. I'll deal with it. Rwood128 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Actually I've added introductory paragraphs in several places, to provide better focus. Rwood128 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize about references, . I have been learning how to format references and find it a pleasing occupation. You put the reference information that is needed, that is the crucial step. Are there automatic bots to format references? In so many articles I read on Wikipedia, the references are incomplete and/or unformatted.   --Prairieplant (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Any way to work that existing section (not from French) on child exploitation into Source et contexte ? It is from Dickens's life, the time working in a factory rather than being in school, as a child. The source for what is there is not a journal article or book, rather an article on the website of the British Library. I have changed wording in it, so it is not direct quotes from that article. I guess it means remarking that this event of Dickens's life, put into David Copperfield's life, was common in England as it underwent industrialization, factories everywhere, and needed some rules to get the children out of those factories and into school. The French are not too interested in that aspect of the child working, are they? --Prairieplant (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll bear this in mind, though I was wondering about creating a section relating to Dickens's social concerns. Rwood128 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 * did you use the American or British edition of Peter Ackroyd's biography of Dickens? The French article has the abridged version but did not use it as a reference. I see you have the first edition publication date. So, it is one of these two –
 * 978-1856190008 1195 pages London Sinclair-Stevenson 1990
 * 978-0060166021 1195 pages New York HarperCollins 1990
 * Let me know and I will update the entry in Books in the Bibliography, for this and Forster.
 * Also, we have too many entries in Bibliograhy Books for Forster's biography of Dickens. One published 1966, another 1976, and I presume both are true copies of the original. The book is also at Project Gutenberg. I found the naming of his 6th son after Henry Fielding in Chapter XX 1848 - 1851 Last Years in Devonshire Terrace p 462 per index in Project Gutenberg html version  here, which I cannot connect with VI, 6 in the cite in the article. Were you using the online version or a printed copy?  --Prairieplant (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is Chapter XX in Volume III on the Project Gutenberg book. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes,, the Ackroyd citation in Bibliography Books is good now, thanks. Just have to make the Forster ref clear, as now the short ref connects to no entry in the Bibliogrpahy section. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The French article gives "John Forster, The Life of Charles Dickens, Londres, J. M. Dent & Sons, 1872-1874". I've checked the 1874 edition online and cannot find anything–suggest we ignore and use a source on Henry Fielding Dickens's page: Dickens, Henry Fielding 'The Recollections of Sir Henry Fielding Dickens, K.C.' Published by William Heinemann Ltd (1934) pg xviii. Rwood128 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuation of translating
New section, continuing the previous one, which was getting rather leggy.

Prairieplant, before I rush on with any further translating, I thought I should first check with you, in case you had plans to work on an area that particularly interested you? Rwood128 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I have not decided on a section yet. . Are you saving 6.3 La chose sociale, last part of Source et contexte, for another section on effects on society? Choose what you like and I will choose what you have not done yet. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant, I have done a little work on "La chose sociale" and wondered if "L'aspect documentaire" might be combined with it in a new section, plus maybe "Depiction of Victorian child exploitation" and "La réhabilitation des prostituées". What do you think? I plan to try and slow down, though this is interesting work. Rwood128 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good, . Maybe I can try the first subsection under Thématique, La dimension autobiographique, which has three parts. I find it interesting also, and really enjoy watching this article have more substance. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)––––That sounds like a useful project. Rwood128 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the Forster ref, I found in the Project Gutenberg html version on line, then we could use that directly, if that is appealing for naming his son after Fielding. But I see that you have a book by the 6th son named for Henry Fielding, and a page number. Maybe use both, putting the online version of Forster's biography after the H F Dickens citation? --Prairieplant (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC). Thanks for sorting this out. Rwood128 (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , great translation of the interesting new material. Rwood128 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have learned editing trivia: harvsp used in French means harvard system, sans parenthèses, and harvnb used in English means harvard system no brackets. Same effect. I did the rest of Themes, so that leaves "L'aspect documentaire" for another section. I cannot come up with a good way to say, Le long parcours initiatique, and google's best effort is poor: The long initiatory journey. Simply drop "initiatory"? --Prairieplant (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , feel free to ignore my suggestions above, re "L'aspect documentaire" and "La réhabilitation des prostituée". With regard to "Le long parcours initiatique," perhaps you might ignore the French and create your own heading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 11:18 March 6, 2019 (UTC)
 * The Long journey of change is today's idea. My brain is overloaded from all the new notions! I will sleep on it. Plus some sentences of introduction under the section title Themes would be good, to sketch the path of those subsections. Demain. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That heading sounds good, . You certainly have been productive! Rwood128 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the final part of "Source et contexte," "La chose sociale". This clearly overlaps with "La réhabilitation des prostituée," but I'm leaving that matter for now. "La chose sociale" is another vague section, which requires an introductory paragraph and some additional material to make things clearer. Rwood128 (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I translated Illustrations, being in a mind for images. I took a subsection from Le point de vue and added it there, as it talks through an illustration by Phiz, the interaction between illustrator and author, and explains how the illustrations are not from David's view point but from a third person view, adding information without words. I really liked that subsection, but I remembered it as being about Illustration. If you think it should go back into Point of view, when that is translated, it can be moved. I chose one image by each of three illustrators for the Other illustrators subsection. The text is short, so I put the clear template at the end, else the last image looks like it belongs to the next section. John Jordan wrote in the book edited by Paroissian, and I do hope that page number is for his writing. I hope La chose sociale is not too much work to make it clear. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Lots of good new stuff! It has been interesting researching the various aspects of "La chose sociale", which is close to being finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk) date12:19, March 9, 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. I started on the third part of Thematique, in my sandbox. I am halfway through, but need to make a new title, better than The documentary aspect, and clear up reference errors I may have made. If any sections of that are in La chose sociale, I will delete them from the ssection. I suspect you will post to the article before I do. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just plan on completing La chose sociale, and adding to it from other sources. But cannot get back to it until Friday at the earliest. Good to hear that you are still working on Thematique. Rwood128 (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you have certainly been busy. I have been working on a print article, but I will try and finish my short piece and then carefully read all that you have done. Rwood128 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it needs a good reading, some awkward phrases there. One end of sentence made no sense in either language, to me, despite a long search for synonyms. I will appreciate a careful reading! On the other hand, the richness of this novel is coming through. I hope your print article goes well. - - Prairieplant (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'The rehabilitation of prostitutes' and 'Prison discipline' should I think be merged into the 'Social issues' section, because of the duplication. I did not give pages for the quotations from DC, because I only have a cheap 1898 edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 11:23, March 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * that is fine. We run into the same source, two different years of publication, with Collins on Dickens and Crime. Is it wild to assume the page numbers stay the same in succeeding editions? You cited 2016 edition, and in Prison Discipline, it is the 1962 edition. Right now I left them as separate sources. Maybe the 5 pages of the 1962 edition can be found in the 2016 edition, which I think is an e-book?? Being hopeful, here.
 * Will you take those two up and merge them? Some duplication, to be sure, though in Sources it is the back drop and in themes, it is considered a theme, but says the same thing really. And the Fallen woman section touches the theme again, in a different way, so not a duplication. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have difficulty with many of the headings found in the French article, which often do not clearly indicate the nature of the content. Just some examples:
 * 8.2	The long journey of change
 * 8.2.1	Strata of life
 * 8.2.3	The hard path to the right balance
 * 8.3	The documentary aspect, social issues of the times
 * 8.3.1	The surface of things
 * 8.3.2	The implicit questions

With regard to "Social issues" I think that this content belongs under "Themes/ :The documentary aspect of social issues of the times", rather than "Sources and context," and I will merge, unless you object. Also "Regional speech" is obviously not a theme. Rwood128 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 * I have changed the bibliographic entry for Dickens and Crime. Rwood128 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , excellent edits throughout the article, thanks for all your work on both organization and copy edit / phrasing of ideas. One question, could we have Themes, Bildungsroman and Themes Social questions? This is a visual thing with me, because the heading size for a third and fourth level heading is exactly the same, and the structure, so clear in the Table of Contents, is not clear as one reads the article. If it is possible to have two sections with Theme in the title, then the structure might be clearer as one reads the text. I will not make the change if that seems trivial.
 * I will look at references. There are some authors added in short refs, and the matching long ref is not in the Bibliography list. The ones I saw first are Lynch 1999. Bakhtin 1996, p. 21. and Jeffers 2005, p. 2. All were cited in the Bildungsroman section, defining that term and and noting how commonly this approach is used by Dickens.
 * Lynch 1999 -- I found this book by Jack Lynch, Glossary of Literary and Rhetorical Terms, published by Rutgers in 1998 but I cannot yet find the isbn, and there is a google books link, here and an online short definition of bildungsroman here. Is this what you used?
 * Bakhtin is Mikhail Bakhtin, who wrote lots about novels in the 1930s and 1940s. I found this title, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by Mikhail Bakhtin, U of Texas, 1983, isbn of 978-0292715349, so not matching 1996. Discourse in the Novel is another title by him, an essay, perhaps? I found images of a book with his words, but information on publisher, year, etc. He died in 1975, so it is a reprint of something, but what?
 * Jeffers 2005 is perhaps this book, Apprenticeships: The Bildungsroman from Goethe to Santayana, by T Jeffers, published by Springer 2005, with isbn of 978-1403979155, and available as a google book here, with Chapter 3 on David Copperfield's Self-Cultivation, starting on page 55, using the google book to learn that. Page 2 is in the Prologue, and Jeffers quotes Bakhtin, and talks about how the bildungsroman came about. Thomas L Jeffers is, best I can find, teaching at Marquette U in Milwaukee now.
 * Let me know if I guessed right on Lynch and Jeffers, and which Bakhtin book is the one to add to the Bibliogrpahy. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'll check these later. By the way re periods after initials, e.g, John O. Jordan. The dropping of the period is a trend rather than British usage. Wikipedia suggests using it, . Rwood128 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've starting working on the points that you raised . Sorry to be slack with the citations. Does my revision to the formatting of headings work for you? Rwood128 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes that method of using the * makes the headings appear different and that works for me. I did not know that format method. I learned British style from other editors changes. There is not a nice page clearly showing the standards for British English, but this page talks more about periods in initials. I have seen no periods in British newspaper articles; the article says to put no space between two initials, Abbreviation, which is new to me and does look so odd, ah well. Wikipedia is not clear about initial of names, Manual of Style. Might we refer to Jordan as Jordan after the first reference? Which Wikipedia advice are we supposed to follow? I will put those references in the Bibliography and used the short refs again. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , re initials the following from the University of Sussex seems to sum up the current situation in the UK:
 * A person's initials are a kind of abbreviation, and these are usually followed by full stops: John D. Rockefeller, C. Aubrey Smith, O. J. Simpson. Increasingly, however, there is a tendency to write such initials without full stops: John D Rockefeller, C Aubrey Smith, O J Simpson. And note the rare special case illustrated by Harry S Truman: the S in this name never takes a full stop, because it's not an abbreviation for anything; President Truman's parents actually gave him the middle name S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 08:40, March 22, 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is hard to settle, . The Guardian newspaper wrote a review on the early books in Scottish author Alexander McCall Smith's series, The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency, which has a character named in the printed books as Mr. J. L. B. Matekoni. In the review, he was Mr JLB Matekoni. It did not matter that the author wrote it one way, The Guardian has its standards and follows them. The University of Sussex article is good and clear guidance, but it was written before Wikipedia came into being. I imagine whatever we choose to do, some future editor will change it. That is what happens to me, at any rate, when I think I am putting an article in British style consistently; then another editor comes around and changes it. So let us be happy with how we work it out. Far more important is the big picture editing you have done, re-arranging sections and paragraphs to a better set of sections, with a good flow. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

, I translated the rest of Prémices et rédaction and titled it Development of the novel, placing that before Publication history. In Great Expectations, the only other article on a Dickens novel with a Development section, Publication history is mixed in with development. Ought that be done in this article? Plus I added to the lead with some of the facts from that section, all tied to one source and the same page in that source. This was a spur of the moment project, not something I planned for the weekend. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 * PS I tried making the Publication history and Major print editions as subsections to Development of the novel See how that looks. We can change it back by removing = signs. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this later, It's great that you have added this. Rwood128 (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * what do you feel about moving "Development of the novel" to follow "Sources and context"? This seems to me a more appropriate place for it (or even earlier?). Rwood128 (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be moved up, not be the last topic. Yes, there is a logical link to Sources and Context. I wonder if the list of topics in MOS:NOVELS is a guide simply to the topics one might cover, or suggested order. But the order varies with the novel and how much has been written about that novel, which in the case of David Copperfield, is very much, entire books of essays, books on one aspect. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * it looks like MOS:NOVELS is suggesting the order for the main sections. Rwood128 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * then a lot of juggling may be needed! There are links to examples of Background, and it has subsections peculiar to that novel (The Lord of the Rings, The Halo Graphic Novel, and The World Without Us), each one has a background section, and the latter two open the article with it. Some have publication tied to background, another separates the two. Literary significance needs to move down, I think. But in general, I think you have a good sense of the big picture in this article, and can move sections around for better reading. I know when I first started looking at articles about novels, it was called Development of the novel, not Background. That title is used for Pride and Prejudice, Mansfield Park and Persuasion by Jane Austen. Middlemarch by George Eliot opens with Background section. Vanity Fair (novel) by Thackeray opens witg Title section. Nostromo opens with Background section, but Lord Jim has none. Heart of Darkness starts with Composition and publication. I am not paying heed to the rating of the various articles, just looking to see the use of Background or Development of the novel in articles about major novels. Crime and Punishment, a Good Article, opens with Background. The Hobbit another Good Article, has Background as subsection to Concept and creation, after Plot summary and characters. There seems to be latitude in order of the sections. I wonder when they changed the suggested section title in the Manual of Style? Does it matter? --Prairieplant (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems,, that MOS:NOVELS is often ignored. Personally I think the history of a novel's creation should come before themes, but MOS:NOVELS argues that "themes" should be near the beginning because "in many ways this is the most important section of the page". In the case of some major novels there is in fact no (or little) discussion of theme. I will move 9.1 to 9.3 to an earlier position. However, if you feel that we should follow the "rules" more closely, feel free to revert, etc. Rwood128 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

, I'd add, that because of the importance of the autobiographical element in ''David Copperfield there is good reason to discuss it before themes. Rwood128 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The re-org is looking good. My one change is to keep the Publication in monthly instalments section as part of Development, because I had to keep looking at the dates of the first serials for the Development section as I modified it after the translation. Part of the changes in the story happened as the earlier serial issues were already printed and sold. this has always amazed me about Dickens, that he wrote the intalments, never considering a change to the beginning as he neared the end of his complex stories -- which he might have done if wrote the novel and published it in whole, or the instalments came after he had finished the writing. But he did change a character's development when he got early feedback that the character was not so good (Miss Mowcher). The rules from MOS seem not to suit the best way to tell the story of every novel. When I looked at all those articles, with their variation in sections written, variation in the order of the sections, the articles worked well because they presented that novel well. In short, I agree with your reasoning. Did you leave Literary Sig section where it is because of the opening paragraph? I plopped it after Characters back when it was translated, not knowing where to put it. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for those suggestions. Rwood128 (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did another unexpected burst of translating, Le Point de vue / Point of view, the two subsections remaining. One subsection I did already and moved to the Illustrations section. It is at my Sandbox now here. Where should I place it, instead of plopping it? --Prairieplant (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's great, I was wondering about that section. What do you feel about placing point of view (the three sections?) before the "Literary significance section"? Rwood128 (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I can put them together and before Literary Sig. I hope you read it, as there was some tricky translation.  --Prairieplant (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good edits, thank you. Re explaining the humor of Brooks of Sheffield, I added two newspaper articles that mention the name, and that there is humor, but do not explain the humor. the word play. In part I think Brits know Sheffield well as the place where their silverware was made, and get the joke part more quickly, then look to whether it was cruel humor or just another name for DC. There is one blog post by Arnie Perlstein that talk at length about this device, and then compares it to Jane Austen's writing! I did not include that one, but it is found here. There is an article in JSTOR that may help, but the abstract is not enough to know for certain, and I do not have full access to JSTOR articles; here is the article by Richard Lettis on The Names of David Copperfield, 2002; Lettis is not yet a source in this article on any other topic. The abstract of Lettis' article says "the cold appelation of the deadly stepfather, Murdstone." The one error in the Urban Dictionary, the ref used by French Wikipedia, not understanding Sheffield as the source of knives and cutlery, seems minor to me. The writer was not British enough to know that reputation of Sheffield with silverware, which the Wikipedia article on Sheffield mentions buried in the History section, the mention in Chaucer 14th century and 1740s the crucible steel process. There is nothing about most silverware coming from there in England. So, working on it.  --Prairieplant (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant, perhaps we should delete the note? This is a minor point–though interesting in what it reveals about the way Dickens's mind worked. The use of "brook" is obscure and hard to explain: "2a. To make use of (food); in later usage, to digest, retain, or bear on the stomach"; "3. To put up with, bear with, endure, tolerate [a figurative sense of ‘to stomach’ in 2]. Now only in negative or preclusive constructions" (Oxford English Dictionary). Murdstone has to "brook" the presence of Copperfield. Or he finds it hard to "stomach" him (Stomach: "5. To brook, endure, put up with, tolerate" (0ED)). Rwood128 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I like the note. It makes clear a pun I did not grasp myself; I simply took it that Murdstone did not want Davy to know they were speaking of him. Now, it is additionally a clever pun and a mean name. Can you read JSTOR articles? I think it is brook as in the sentence "I cannot brook your insubordination" is the meaning here. Which of course was not something to say in a letter to a company in Sheffield named Brookes. In the text, I added "first" episode, as now I know it is in Chapters 10 and 64 as well.  --Prairieplant (talk)

is there anything left to consider for translation? Récapitulation, which is part of Plot / Intrigue, but has some analysis of the novel, how the retrospective chapters were used and so on. Anything from the character descriptions? The poetry of I, given up for its terseness. The lead, which I think has a few sentences not precisely in the article, like this sentence "À première vue, l'œuvre est modelée à la manière lâche et quelque peu décousue des « histoires personnelles » (personal histories) très en vogue dans la Grande-Bretagne du XVIIIe siècleN 4 ; mais en réalité, David Copperfield est un roman soigneusement structuré et unifié." and this phrase ending the long sentence following the one I just quoted, "histoire, écrit Paul Davis, d'un « Monsieur Tout le Monde victorien en quête de compréhension de soi » (« a Victorian everyman seeking self-understanding »6)." Maybe the translations can go into the article and the lead? I have added to the lead here and there, to pick up some of the article, but it could use a review. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Prairieplant, re article on Copperfield's names, while I can access JSTOR that particular article is only available to me as hard copy–if I can, I'll try and read it sometime. Please add anything that you think will improve the article, including the plot summary. The "Intrigue" (Plot) section seems very lengthy, but you can better judge, than me, what is useful. I am thinking about doing something with the "Initial reception" section, as well as on the novel's subsequent reputation. Rwood128 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * that seems a good plan. I will look at translations, and then remove the flag on the article. Plus see which refs can be improved; I would like to replace Schmoop in the Symbolism section. As to subsequent reputation, I found this link while looking for something else. It is part of a book, I think, by Gareth Cordrey, discussing the revitalized interest in all of Dickens works, and David Copperfield in particular from about 1900. The fading Empire and WWI left the English feeling low, and Dickens raised their spirits. His books sold in huge numbers, as copyrights had lapsed. I put the following in my sandbox to remind me.
 * And another, with the story of revived interest in Dickens and his novels after 1900, and how new illustrations were made, some used as cards in a pack of cigarettes. All to make Englishmen feel better about themselves, per Gareth Cordrey. On Victorian Web here —Prairieplant (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Last translation
I did my last translation, and it is in my sandbox here. Again, I do not want to plop it in the article. My one idea is following Point of view. I will put it where you think most logical, given the title of Recapitulation of plot structure. I made some changes to the lead, too. You can undo them if they are repetitious. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 * I know this is a holiday weekend, but I hope you have time soon to react to the Recapitulation translation. Is it worth putting in the article?
 * The other task for improving this article – My public library is getting me a copy of Paroissien's 2008/2011 book using inter-library loan, so I can check some of the references, and possibly improve those for Symbolism, using other articles in that book. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try and find time Prairieplant shortly–and will complete the initial reception section. Rwood128 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to add this. Rwood128 (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Subsequent reputation section: citation question
In this sentence, do the page numbers refer to the book by Leavis? "However, in 1948, F. R. Leavis in The Great Tradition, contentiously, excluded Dickens from his canon, characterising him as a ‘popular entertainer’ (p. 244) without ‘mature standards and interests’ (p. 132)." The last reference before this sentence, to Lyn Pykett, does not include such low page numbers. I added Leavis's book to the bibliography, so I could turn those page numbers into short refs to his book, if that is what they are. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Prairieplant these page do refer to The Great Tradition, the text of which is available online. However, I was using a secondary source, and will check the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 13:09 April 17, 2019 (UTC)
 * the first one is on page 244, using the online copy. That copy shows original page numbers, very clever. F R Leavis says that phrase more than once about Dickens. The second quote is on page 132, a trait that Henry James displays, but which Dickens lacks, so I can set those up as short refs, and I will add the online book url in the Bibliography. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First Archive of Talk page set up
/Archive 1   --Prairieplant (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

More citations fixed
It turns out that all the Paroissien citations attributed to Jordan were from the chapter by Gareth Cordery pp 369-379 in the book, so I added Cordery to the Books part of the Bibliography, changed the short form refs to his name, and year 2008 for the copy of the book in my hands, ISBN changed as well, and put Cordery's name where Jordan's was.
 * Next step with this book in hand, is to see if any author gives better source for something in Symbolism section, to replace the Spark Notes as a source.
 * An aside, Cordery states that only Forster knew that Dickens worked as a child, until Forster published the biography after Dickens died. Dickens parents never spoke of it, he never spoke of it, save to Forster (page 377, Cordery). Readers of the novel before the biography was published had no chance to know that he was telling the start of a story of his own. Is that worth mentioning to modern readers, that the first generations of readers did not know these events? --Prairieplant (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a URL for this ref in Literary Sig section? Paul Schlicke, David Copperfield: Reception", Oxford Reader's Companion to Dickens'. Oxford University Press, 2000 Print ISBN-13: 9780198662532 Published online: 2011 subscription needed.
 * The comment about "subscription needed" is relevant for a cite with a url. I will format it, and keep subscription needed in comment until there is a URL, okay? PS Congratulations on finding that source. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My source is my University's library subscription, and cannot be quoted. This is what Google gives: . It's good to see you still working on this article. Rwood128 (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay,, other people cannot see the text online and we need not use the subscription warning. I once saw an article using EBSCO at my local library, and used the via parameter. No one else could use the link, a similar situation. It seems enough to give the print information, a clear source. So that is how we leave it. I like this article; I have learned so much from the work on it. Will it reach B class or better? —Prairieplant (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes,Prairieplant it was v.good working with you on this article. It may well be a B, but the reviewing process work poorly, from my experience. I asked for the article Alley to be assessed 5 years ago. I suspect that most attention is paid to articles put forward for an A category. It would be very useful to know how it might be improved.
 * I shouldn't, of course, have assessed this article because of my involvement as an editor, but it seemed so obvious (commonsense) that it was at least a C. Rwood128 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked for it to be re-assessed . Rwood128 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It was reviewed and given a B. More work and it could be Good or Featured, comments at the link you posted at Requesting an Assessment. Thank you for asking! --Prairieplant (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Minor comment by Robert Ferrieux
I would like to congratulate the contributors to this article for the brilliant use they have made of the French article. However, I wonder whether it would'nt be fair to acknowledge this debt (as we always do on this side of the channel) when we borrow from articles written in English or any other language. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any relevant mention in the main article. With every good wish, --Robert Ferrieux (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks Robert Ferrieux for the kind comments. I'm checking on how this is done. Rwood128 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert Ferrieux, there is an acknowledgement at the beginning of this page, though it's small and I didn't notice it (below the heading banner, on the right). Also, when Prairieplant and I used translated material we acknowledged it in the edit summary. Hope that answers your query. Rwood128 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 * The small box on this Talk page is what English Wikipedia requests when we translate from another Wikipedia, on the talk page but not on the article page. That little box also shows at the bottom of the Talk page in Categories, that this is in the category of articles translated from French Wikipedia. Why the rules are that way, I could not say! Before we added the text, there was a flag on top of the article saying how much better this article would be with translations from the French article; now that the translations are here, that flag is removed. And as Rwood128 noted, each time we added the translated text, the Edit summary for the article (view history) stated that it was a translation from the article in French Wikipedia. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting brave, I put a comment on the Talk page in French Wikipedia, when I found that John O Jordan was mentioned in text where the name was really Gareth Cordery, based on the page numbers cited in the book by David Paroissien, a collection of great essays on Charles Dickens. And I see that you have modified the French article in the same way that I modified the English article, to cite Cordery in the text and in the inline citation. We have gained greatly from the French Wikipedia article, . --Prairieplant (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * is that your book we cited in the article? I just looked at the edits you did. I did not know the book was available in both languages, French and English. Is the translation in the text adequate? I modified the language parameter to say French and English, though we used the version from French Wikipedia, so I presume the ISBN is for the book in French, not in English, c'est vrai ? --Prairieplant (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. The book mentioned is a collective effort, but I wrote the greatest part of it. There is only one version, the one published in 2001 by Ellipses. The reason why I added 'en' to 'fr' is that if most chapters are in French, some, depending on the choice of authors, are in English. The reference to Georges Gusdorf comes from a chapter in French written by myself. The ISBN concerns the whole book. Many thanks for your compliments. I often use the English version as a basis before expatiating on it. I love this kind of collabotation, often occult, but sometimes open and direct. Please let's keep in touch, we might be of some help to each other. May I ask you both to use my French talkpage (English is most welcome): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Robert_Ferrieux. Best regards, --Robert Ferrieux (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Peggotty's boat house

 * Prairieplant, re recent edits, see the following, from the article (the final paragraph):
 * One puzzling mismatch between the text and accompanying illustrations is that of the Peggotty family's boat-house "cottage" on the Yarmouth sands (pictured). It is clear from the text that the author envisaged the house as an upright boat, whereas the illustrator depicted it as an upturned hull resting on the beach with holes cut for the doors and windows. Interior illustrations of the cottage also show it as a room with curved ceiling beams implying an upturned hull. Although Dickens seemed to have had the opportunity to correct this discrepancy he never did, suggesting that he was happy with the illustrator's depiction.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 15:53 June 5, 2020 (UTC)

 * Okay, thanks. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing key moments
No mention of him making the statue of liberty disappear? 14.200.219.9 (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not pertinent, see David Copperfield (illusionist) with your comment. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Changed a Note to a ref in Literary significance and reception, 2nd paragraph
I changed the note referring to Davis 1999 to a ref, using harvb format, as his much-referenced work is in the bibliography list. Is there a page number for that? The second paragraph looks like this
 * Situated in the middle of Dickens's career, it represents, according to Paul Davis, a turning point in his work, the point of separation between the novels of youth and those of maturity.[157] In 1850, Dickens was 38 years old and had twenty more to live, which he filled with other masterpieces, often denser, sometimes darker, that addressed most of the political, social and personal issues he faced.
 * At 157 is where the ref to Davis 1999 is.
 * A smaller point, should he be Paul B Davis in the bibliography? World Cat lists him that way, and he is Paul B Davis emeritus professor at U of New Mexico. Small point for a big author.
 * I think he did a revision in 2006 with a different title, Charles Dickens : A Literary Reference to His Life and Work by Paul B. Davis, hardcover publisher by Facts on File with ISBN 9780816064076 -- things I learn in hopes of finding some of the text of his book on line, which of course I did not find. This page here from World Cat shows the table of contents for the revised version of his "encyclopedia of Dickens" and says it was published in 2007 by Facts on File as hardcover and as an e-book.. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Prairieplant, I cannot help. My university library has this book, but we are in lockdown, with urgent library access only. I didn't add this. Rwood128 (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

ie or i.e. & apostrophes
A quick google suggests that there isn't a standard British usage in this case. Rwood128 (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Prairieplant, I checked OED online and it has i.e., as does The New Fowler's, and my copy of Chambers gives both versions. Rwood128 (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 * That is good work. Does that mean we use the full stops? It is hard when British usage is not as consistent as I might like, to settle a question. - - Prairieplant (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 * I commented in case your edit was disputed, Prairieplant. The examples that I found seem to favour i.e., but either is obviously acceptable! Rwood128 (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Prairieplant and Rwood128. Just a friendly note: at Wikipedia we have a pretty exhaustive style guide, which standardizes usage across the project, and reduces conflict between editors whose intuitions about what is and is not correct may vary.

MOS

In this case, we use e.g. and i.e.: see MOS:ABBR.

In the case of names ending in s, we—as Dickens himself did—append 's, without exception: see MOS:'S.

Regulov (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

 * There is not one style across English language Wikipedia. There are several styles. You prefer s’s but my own search for the definitive British style on that question, that search did not find your way to be the only acceptable British style. Oddly enough, present day, 21st century, British style does not match the style Dickens used for the possessive or for titles. As I like to work on articles by British authors, I try to keep up with today’s British style. I would prefer you revert your “undo”. The style of Dickens’ for the possessive was consistent through the article, and sone weight is given to the work of prior editors.
 * I admit to missing some of the spellings that differ between British, American and Canadian spellings, and am pleased when natives fix the spellings. I work hard on the punctuation, as American editors too often pass by an article and change text from what is in unfamiliar British style to their own American style. An aside to you, please put a straightforward edit description on your changes. - - Prairieplant (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * National varieties of English are not germane to this dispute. It simply does not matter whether the article is written in British English or American English. Nor is it a question of my preference, or of consistency, or of the work of prior editors. There is no "definitive British style", but there is a definitive WP style, and it is outlined here: MOS:POSS. The MOS is very clear and unambiguous. At WP, we write "Dickens's". I am simply bringing the page into compliance with the house style. I know it looks unfamiliar, even unpleasant to you; I suggest holding your nose until you get used to it. Next time you encounter a style or formatting question, please start at MOS rather than Fowler's or Google. You will find that editors have already had the argument, hundreds of times, and guidance has been drawn up so we can get on with more important things. Regulov (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * MOS:'S suggests consulting the article Apostrophe. There I read: "Similar examples of notable names ending in an s that are often given a possessive apostrophe with no additional s include Dickens and Williams." Rwood128 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Another practice in Wikipedia is to follow the style that previous editors agreed to use, before stomping in with minor rules. Changing one apostrophe at a time is annoying, by the way. You see above that Wikipedia style allows for the apostrophe alone for a possessive on a name ending in s, and their example is Mr Dickens. I hope that ends this crusade of yours in articles about novels by Charles Dickens. - - Prairieplant (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * You do not understand how this works. The article Apostrophe is an encyclopedic treatment of the apostrophe. It has no bearing on Wikipedia's house style, except in the most trivial way. It is not relevant to our discussion here, any more than are Fowler's or the OED. If you wish to change the Wikipedia house style, you are welcome to try, over at Wikipedia talk:MOS. It would be appropriate to cite style guides and evidence of prevailing usage and so on in your effort to change the MOS.

 * I am not on a crusade. I am simply "gnoming" articles into compliance with our house style. My edits are going to stand, in the end. It is only a question of how long and how painful the process will be, and that is up to you. Regulov (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * MOS:'S, under "possessives", advises "For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe". Rwood128 (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I am aware of that. As I explained above, that does not matter for our purposes. That article lies outside the MOS, and is not part of it. Editors are bound by the text of the MOS, not by the text of the encyclopedia. I assure you, it is no accident that the text of MOS:'S itself is unequivocal; that is the product of a long process of consensus-building, just as are sections of the MOS which give editors more latitude. It says what it says. If it intended to say otherwise, it would do so. The editors who wrote it are certainly aware of the more complicated terrain described at Apostrophe, as the direction "For thorough treatment" acknowledges. Nevertheless, the house style—while arguably arbitrary—is considerably simpler. This is not unusual. Wikipedia is a large publication, with many contributors, and does not accommodate everyone's preferences. Newspapers, for instance, likewise reduce rather than reflect the grammatical chaos of the organic language, by imposing a house style. Regulov (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

writes, at my talk page:

 * Nor can you do whatever you want. British style REALLY does not use the full stop, their name for the period, the same way Americans use them. Read some British publications and notice the differences. You are now edit-warring, in my view. The editors who work on articles about novels by Dickens work hard at them, and work out differences on substance and style. You are not listening. Please do listen and get educated. None of us are new to Wikipedia, nor new to British style. - - Prairieplant

We will not be moving the discussion to my talk page.

You are simply wrong on the merits. I am not doing whatever I want; I am adhering to the MOS. "British style" is not at issue here. I have read several British publications, thank you very much. I have listened to you, and I have yet to hear a good argument. I am reasonably educated. You may not be new to Wikipedia, but it looks to me like you have not really engaged before with this side of the project.

You use "British style" as if it were a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. I note that you presume I am not familiar with British English; you presume I am an (ignorant, bullying) American. Why? There are American editors here who do precisely the inverse: they immediately imagine I am an (overweening, supercilious) Englishman, and raise their national variety of English like an aegis.

Well, so I accuse you of treating "British style" as a license to do what you like, and you perceive me as charging around doing what I like. The difference, however, is manifest: I am bringing the text into line with the project's house style, and you are resisting that amendment. What I do or do not like is immaterial; you might with some justice say that I have simply decided to "like" what the MOS calls for, so as to make enforcing it easier on my personal sensibilities. I recommend you do the same.

It is true that the MOS permits dropping the period from Mr., Dr., &c. on grounds of national variety of English (MOS:POINTS). But that is not at issue, is it? I have left those alone. What you are objecting to is my adding the periods to "F. R. Leavis", &c. In biographical names, the standard is much stricter (MOS:INITS). Is there anything else? Or are we clear yet? Regulov (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * As far as I can see there is no preferred British or American style (see Purdue Oline Writing Labl), though the WP house style seems to be "s's", and this – and a period after initials – is used by the University of Wales Press, the London Review of Books, and other British sources that I checked, Prairieplant. To be clear, I write "J. C. Powys's novels". The only WP source that I can find that provides guidance is Apostrophe. I am unable to find any other WP source, Regulov. Rwood128 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure I understand you. What do you mean by "any other WP source"? I don't have to provide a source. Is that what you mean? MOS:'S (and MOS:INITS) is the (sufficient) authority for the edits. The MOS is a set of guidelines, not a set of articles. MOS:'S is not citing Apostrophe; is that what you mean? I'm sorry, but I have to insist: the fact that the University of Wales Press agrees on this point with WP is no more than trivia. It is not relevant. I have explained what the WP style is; there is really nothing to discuss, at any rate not here. Of course it is in principle possible to amend the MOS in some way that would change the way "Dickens's" is handled on this page, but that process should probably take place over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and until such time as the MOS is changed, the page will have to continue to read, "Dickens's". Am I anywhere close to what you're talking about? Regulov (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * This is confusing. I followed your advice Regulov and went to MOS:'S, which led me on this path →Manual of Style→For thorough treatment of the English possessive, see Apostrophe→Apostrophe.

 * As you dismissed the use of the Apostrophe article, I naturally presumed that there was another, better source that you were referring to. I fully agree with what you say about both matters, but doesn't Prairieplant deserve a clearer answer from you? Can you quote, and fully document, here, your MOS source, if it differs from what I have described above? By the way I provided sources for current British and American usage for Prairieplant's benefit.Rwood128 (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I will try again. The MOS is the law. Full stop. At Wikipedia, the possessive is spelled as described at MOS:POSS. The end. The article Apostrophe is, for our purposes, irrelevant. The MOS is not an article. The usual Wikipedia "cite your sources" business does not apply to the dispute we are having here. This is a style dispute, not a content dispute. Does that help? Regulov (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Sorry to be so dumb (lazy). I was confused by the phrase "for thorough treatment" at the beginning of the section, which clearly recommends the Apostrophe article, despite what you say. I didn't realize that there was the following discussion below:

 * Singular nouns
 * For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus).

 * Well, this is a kind of progress. If you hadn't read that far, I don't know what we've been talking about. This is the house style I have been hammering on about. This is the content of the section "Possessives", and it is what I have been trying to get you to read every time I've linked MOS:POSS / MOS:'S. Again, I am not confident you understand the distinction I am trying to draw between sections of the MOS, like MOS:APOSTROPHE, and Wikipedia articles, like Apostrophe. The MOS links out to Apostrophe strictly for further reading. All we need to settle this "Dickens's" business, however, is at MOS:POSS. Anyway, if we're through here, I'm satisfied. No hard feelings. Regulov (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no laws. It has guidelines, and discussions among editors. MOS is not a law by any definition of a law. I never wasted so much time on full stops and the proper form of the possessive, and had so many insults thrown at me by another editor. I hope you are satisfied now and stop with these tedious revisions. -- Prairieplant (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * What insults? Show me one. I have been extremely patient. The revisions will stand. I agree, however, that there has been a certain amount of time wasted. Regulov (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Your form of communication is insulting, as you accept no views but your own. On 10 February, above, you were linked to an article recommended by MOS and totally ignored what it said, gave no indication that you read it or saw its potential to end this dispute. You interfere with the main editors of the article and the styles they settled on. And of course, you must have the last word, and that word is not, that you are satisfied to have your way.

 * If you think you are patient, well, I am not sure who would see that in you. I would not use that word. Way too persistent on small points of punctuation style, and unwilling to accept the views of others is what you showed in these interactions. I hope you are more polite and low key with others. -- Prairieplant (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 * You say I have thrown "so many insults" at you; when pressed, you cannot cite one. No, the insult, apparently, is that I do not "accept" your view. Well, I do not accept it. Your way of ending the dispute doesn't work. That's why we have a rule. I keep pointing you to the rule, and you keep saying, but other publications have a different rule, and I choose to be governed by their rule. Do you see the problem?

 * "Way too persistent on small points of punctuation style"—does this describe me, or you? You are every bit as persistent as I am; if I shouldn't care about small points, why should you? If you think it doesn't matter, why not just accept the house style? What you don't understand is that over the years, the sovereignty of "the main editors of the article", their power to determine for themselves how they want to organize things and spell things and so on, has been eroded. It isn't up to you; or, anyway, if you want your say on the issue, you can have it at Talk:MOS, but not here. Wikipedia is maturing. This page isn't your private fiefdom, and the style and formatting of the whole project have come a long way from the dog's breakfast days of a decade ago. I realize you don't bother about the MOS, so you feel like you're getting blindsided, but a lot of work has gone into it, and a lot of work has gone into gnoming articles into line with it. Every now and then some editor asserts ownership of a page and makes a stink because they don't like the MOS way and they don't understand that it doesn't matter what they like. It always ends the same way, because the whole point of having a rule is so that we can settle disputes.

 * As for my tone, a lot of it is in your head. Again, where have I been impolite to you? Quote me. Isn't it just possible you're inferring more than the text of my responses will support? Forgive me, but I feel like when you say I should be "more polite and low key" what you really mean is I should "let have their way." Try reading me in a milder tone of voice; you shouldn't be insulted just because I dare to have a different opinion.

 * Let's review: my position is summed up at MOS:INITS and MOS:'S. I am editing all the Dickens-related pages to bring them into line with these and a handful of other fairly minor sections of the MOS. You don't think the MOS has any force here, because the pages are written in British English, and you point to examples of other publications which handle possessives and initials differently. I am aware both that usage varies widely among users of English and that there are broad areas of consensus distinguishing national varieties of English; I am further aware of Wikipedia's policy with respect to these national varieties. I assert that the MOS is in force on this page. There is no exception for "British style"; nor should there be. Crucially, it doesn't matter what they do at the Guardian. If you drive on the left side of the road in Minneapolis, you can't tell the cops it's okay because they drive on the left in Kyoto. They do indeed drive on the left in Kyoto—well spotted! But it doesn't matter, because you are in Minneapolis. "But what about Japanese diplomats? Can they drive on the left?" I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. I invite counter-argument. Regulov (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 * MOS follows British style for initials and apostrophes, as I have noted previously. I found a Guardian article,, when I googled "Yeats' or Yeats's". They used the latter! Rwood128 (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Apostrophe
, when I recently mentioned the "s'"s controversy to a retired, Canadian professor of English, she emphatically stated that "Dickens'" is wrong, and the The New Yorker and other American journals that she reads use "s's". I have just consulted two books published by American publishers and one American journal and they confirm this.Rwood128 (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So, Canadian and American styles are settled. - - Prairieplant (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Charles Dickens (C.D). David Copperfield (D.C) Inversion of characters
Dear All, I believe the entire life of David Copperfiled was the life of Charles Dickens itself, changing Charles Dickens(CD) to David Copperfield (DC). Thanks. Wrsdes (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

New images added and reverted
I have again deleted the images recently added by User:Richardgrayson3451 to David Copperfield and Great Expectations:

•	The images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by User:Richardgrayson3451, and the source is shown as own work. To then add them to articles which they have been editing appears to be self-promotion and a conflict of interest.

•	User:Richardgrayson3451 was requested on their talk page by User:Rwood128 to identify the source of these images, and has not responded. If the images are not their own work then, without knowing their origin, it must be assumed that they do not have permissions and should not be in WP.

Per WP:COIADVICE, if the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial. Editors should rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. User:Richardgrayson3451, if you wish to restore these images, I suggest you make proposals to do so on the respective articles' talk pages so other editors can consider if these images actually improve the articles. Masato.harada (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 * the following image is mine and made by me from ai
 * it is not stolen neither is it plagiarized. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So this is a sketch made by you with the aid of AI? I'm puzzled. Is an editor permitted display their own original art here anymore than original text? Rwood128 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i do not see a problem with it as long as it is wrong? ￼
 * i did not offend anyone neither did it cause a conflict rather an accurate impression of a character. ￼
 * what use is it if we don't use the resources around us? Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is illustrating an article with your own original work – what does using 'the resources around us' mean? This doesn't seem to be true to the spirit of Wikipedia, especially as lots of good images already exist that are more relevant. Isn't adding original sketches just like adding original research? Rwood128 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * as long as it did not offend anyone im perfectly sure it is fine.
 * we dont have dicken's current generation to find out the truth but certainly and accurate potrayal with exact textx from the original are nice and speed up process rather that finding and searching and then accused of stealing the work.
 * also be it AI it is my work and basically i made that image.
 * AI as per the law has not copyright so the image is basically considered as an artist would consider theirs. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * AI as per the law has not copyright so the image is basically considered as an artist would consider theirs. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are the one operating the computer that uses AI. Without you there would be no image. Won't it be wonderful when AI takes over Wikipedia and we can do more interesting and valuable lives? What is the source of the image created by AI? A rough sketch by you? A scanned image? What? Rwood128 (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Copperfield