Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Sub-section heading

Both Section 1 and subsection 1.4 are labeled life. Shouldn't the latter be changed to "Adulthood" or something similar ? Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know how that happened. Changed to "Adulthood". Awadewit (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Susan

Is it generally regarded as 'unfinished'? It is not unfinished in the same way that 'Sanditon' and 'The Watsons' are. It is a complete story - though a short one.Sterry2607 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I assume you were referring to the list? That is an artifact of an earlier article. We haven't even worked on that yet. I've moved Lady Susan. Perhaps you would be willing to fix up the list? :) Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Austen action figure image

I consulted someone more familiar with the image guidelines than myself just to check to see if I was right regarding the Jane Austen action figure image not being in the public domain. Here are the comments I received (copied from my talkpage):

You're correct; the image constitutes a derivative work and, as such. the uploader does not have rights thereto. Commons guidelines explicitly identify action figures as unacceptable. Additionally, Step 1 of the Commons upload template lists commercial packaging as "not allowed" (which is, however, poorly enforced; this, for example, was unidentified as a "quality image", basically a Commons GA). The Jane Austen action figure image would only be in the public domain if the creator of the figure/packaging has released it as such. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am therefore removing the image from the article again. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay...but you should have gone about it this way from the beginning. I wish there were someway that the picture could stay (some different kind of copyright mark or something) because I think it adds value to the article, but you obviously don't like the picture and are unwilling to look for other alternatives, and since it appears you are the unofficial administrator of this article, I'm confronting a bit of a wall. --Eustress (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Butting in here, but I fail to see the cultural significance of this image, copyright issue or no. It's is an action figure of Jane Austen. They're for sale in my uni's bookstore along with ones of Sigmund Freud and Shakespeare; it's a joke. Were there some kind of significance tied to the figure other than its connection to dorm room culture, I would see no problem with adding it under a fair use rationale. What's next, Austen chewing gum? I'm sure it's out there somewhere. María (habla conmigo) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not that I don't like it (it's a great illustration of the Janeite concept, I think). The image violates Wikipedia's copyright policy. What more is there to say about it? If you want to find other images that we can use under the copyright policy, I have no problem with that. In fact, it would be a big help if you were to look for images for the article. Simmaren and I have been working on the text. If you could work on looking for images. that would be wonderful. Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Eustress, why not just ask the copyright holder to release an image of the packaging? If you haven't already tried this, apparently there is a 50%-70% success rate. The steps are outlined in Wikipedia's requesting copyright permission article. Basically you use a commons process whereby you will eventually submit an email trail (with the rights holder) via OTRS to support your upload. It isn't difficult and it worked smoothly for me on a couple of biographies very recently. BTW though I see what María/Yllosubmarine means, I think it is important to capture ephemera like this while you can. Popular interest in Jane Austen (beyond uni bookstore/doom room culture) is probably cyclical, and this figure is probably some sort of high-water mark (until "chawton gum" hits the streets). Better to ask for a release now while it is still easy to reach the rights holder. - Pointillist (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong, I think these "action figures" are hilarious. The Freud one especially. I just don't believe an image of a joke Austen doll (with writing desk!) is a true barometer of her lasting legacy in today's pop culture. Screencaps of recent semi-biographical films would be more encyclopedic. Still, if an OTRS permission were obtained for the image, I wouldn't fight over its inclusion. It would merely depress me and my purist sensibilities. María (habla conmigo) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I still think the figure suits Janeite best. Maria, can you get us a screenshot of the 1995 BBC film? That one is the most important one according to my research, so we could easily justify a shot, I think. Awadewit (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The action-figure image could more legitimately be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, than to Commons. Churchh (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• My goal in including the action figure was just a simple and singular illustration of Austen in pop culture—not a barometer by any means. I'm surprised that more isn't said about Austen's modern-day appeal in this article. Heck—a movie about Austen (Becoming Jane) even came out recently in several countries. --Eustress (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• This article is supposed to discuss Jane Austen, her works, and her reception - a very tall order. As you will notice, nothing is said about her works yet. That is the single biggest omission in the article. Simmaren and I have been working on a "Style and themes" section here. I hope to get back to it in May. Detailed information on modern-day reception can be found in Reception history of Jane Austen and, as I said, I hope to read more on film, TV, and novel adaptations and add more to the "Adaptations" section in that article. If you could help out with that, I would be ever so grateful. I have a good list of books, if you would need any help with sources. Jane Austen in popular culture and Janeite also have information on modern fan culture and adaptations. These subarticles have to be split off when there is too much information to include in the main article but they are all summarized in the main article. We have to keep in mind that we are trying to summarize 200 years of reception - it is very difficult to keep those 200 years in perspective. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I had no idea there was an entire article dedicated to Jane Austen in popular culture—probably because it's hidden under See also. It would be nice to integrate that link somewhere into the article, but like you said, there's a lot to cover about Jane Austen. I would be bold and work on the integration myself, but I think you ladies have a good idea of what the article should look like (and probably a better understanding of Jane Austen in general), so I'll work on fixing the picture and inserting it into the pop culture article (a better fit) and will continue to lend a hand here where possible. Best --Eustress (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (P.S. I have read a few Jane Austen books, and I'm not sure how many other guys can say that :)

Link added at the top of the "Reception" section. If you want help with the image, ask Elcobbola. She knows the image rules backwards and forwards. She can help you figure out how to write to the company, etc. I really think Janeite is the place for that image. We need a good image there. Awadewit (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On film and book adaptions

There is a subsection at Reception history of Jane Austen#Adaptations on Jane Austen adaptations. Now, this section is in development and I was planning on reading Jane Austen in Hollywood and Jane Austen on Screen before importing a summary here. However, I think it is better to have a well-sourced summary regarding the film and book adaptations. I will write one later today. We can rewrite the summary when the full section has been written. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Small summary has been added. Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Family

I wanted to include more details of her brothers, in the family section. Clearly her family was extremely important to her so it seemed appropriate. The source material I was using was based on her nephew's memoir, including their professions, the year of their birth and death. (This also indicates that her brothers were also high achievers, but I wasn't going to say that explicitly.) I was going to add the James Edward Austen-Leigh memoir in the reference section as well as it is not there currently listed and is my source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchick (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct that Austen's family was very important to her. However, this page is already long and missing a very important section - on her novels! (We are slowly working on that - could you help?) What do you think about adding details on her family to a page we have been working on regarding her family? (see User:Simmaren/Sandbox/Draft Jane Austen's Family) We hope to make this into an article about Austen's family eventually. Also, please note the memoir is already used as a source for this article. Awadewit (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that her novels really do deserve at least a section. I can help with the 5 major novels. But I don't know her lesser known writing very well. 12 June 2008 PDT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchick (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• We are working on just such a page now - our notes are here and our draft is here and we would definitely appreciate help! (When you comment, please sign with four tildas (~~~~) - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty new here so i will start using the four tildas. I have done some work on Elizabeth Bennett (I am certain it was tt in the Australian versions of the books) but I think I'd like to totally rewrite the entry. Auchick (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Could we have a discussion about the plot summaries being added to the article? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I did add the summaries with the list of novels. I suppose they shouldve been sandboxed first. Auchick (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that we need plot summaries in the Austen article itself. All of the novel articles have plot summaries, so it seems like we are replicating information unnecessarily. What do others think? Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am really confused about what you wanted when you originally asked for in the plot summaries. Auchick (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Who asked for plot summaries? I am equally confused. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as well, but could it be that Auchick added some plot summaries, Awadewit asked for a discussion on whether or not they should be added, and Auchick interpreted it as a request for these plot summaries? For what it's worth, I don't think there should be plot summaries in the article on Austen. We have them in the articles about the books, and the article about Austen links to the articles about the books. Stratford490 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and remove the plot summaries. I agree with Stratford that we don't need to replicate the plot summaries found on other articles. Awadewit (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

I'm not sure why this article has been nominated for GA. I think that the nomination should be withdrawn. The article is not even remotely broadly comprehensive, as it does not include a section on her works yet and should therefore be failed. Awadewit (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

? There is a section entitled on her works, with many links to the invidual articles on her works. Her works are described throughout this main article. Tom (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not near enough. Two of us are working on a subarticle on her styles and themes that we will then summarize in this article. The current discussion of her works in the article is superficial at best. The article should look more like Mary Shelley or Mary Wollstonecraft. Would you like to help us develop this section? Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Shelley and wollstonecraft are FA and FAC so not examples of what GA should look like. Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured. A featured article must be comprehensive; a good article must be broad. The comprehensive standard requires that every main point have elaboration and detail; the broad standard merely requires coverage of main points. I'd add a lead to your styles and themes article and add that lead to this Jane Austen article as soon as you can, thanks Tom (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Stepping in here, but let me get this straight: you, Tom, nominate this article for GAC and then tell one of the main contributors what they must do in order to prepare it for said nom that they do not approve of? How is that fair? If one of the major contributors does not believe it is ready to undergo a GA-nom (and, trust me, Awadewit, with numerous GAs and FAs under her belt, definitely is knowledgeable in this regard), I would withdraw it. I see no reason to rush this article and its gradual growth, especially if you are just going to nominate and then run. María (habla conmigo) 14:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But my whole point is that the Austen article isn't even broad - it doesn't cover the main points necessary for an author biography as it does not discuss the author's works. I merely pointed to these other articles as examples that do so that you could a sense of what is missing. Again, I urge the GA nomination be withdrawn as I am not going to rush to summarize the themes and styles in Austen's works for this nomination. I'm sure we both want the article to be as good as it can be and rushing through these processes does not achieve that. If the GA nomination is not withdrawn, I urge the GA reviewer to fail the article. It does not meet the criteria and I have personally failed many author biographies at GA myself for not including such a section. Awadewit (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not tell any contributor what they must do to prepare the article for a nomination." I would reread what I said and the tone that I said it in. Also, "especially if you're going to nominate and then run," even if I hadn't already posted a note on Awadewit's talkpage after nominating, saying I would help on this article in anyway that I could, you shouldn't say those things and use that tone particularly if you are an experienced and good editor and is worrying that such an editor would do so. Even if one of the main contributors does not believe it is ready, if you believe an article is ready then you should wait for the reviewer to do their review. I don't need anyone to tell me that Awadewit is a knowledgeable editor. Awadewit, I think the article covers the main points including the author's works. It is entirely possible the GA reviewer will fail it as you urge, kind regards Tom (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your words: "i would like to help out but i'm afraid i won't be able to, certainly not in the near future"[1]. I'm sorry if I in some way misunderstood, but I took that to mean that you were not planning on investing yourself here. Awadewit, however, has invested herself along with Simmaren and I believe that they know what is best for the article. Again, I agree with withdrawing the nomination at this time. Better it be withdrawn than failed. María (habla conmigo) 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I always hate to waste valuable reviewer time when this article is, in my opinion, clearly unready. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to be very familiar with the standards required for GA, but would agree that if experienced editors on this page feel it's not ready, then it should be withdrawn and improved before trying again. A withdrawal is better than a failure. Stratford490 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maria, I was responding to Awadewit's invite for me to participate on her themes article, which is why I said thanks for the invite and then I'm afraid I won't be able to. I do not want to waste anyone's time which is why I edited the article before nominating it. Please can we avoid unwittingly doing a 'tag team' per wp:own. It's very unlikely that withdrawals are always better than failures. The topic is GA nomination and if the article is clearly unready then the reviewer can do 'quick fail' in order to avoid wasting their time, as you can see from below. thanks Tom (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Status Fail

In order to achieve GA Status, a Wikipedia article must satisfy ALL six of the GA Criteria, the fifth criteria refers to "Stability". It is incumbent upon editors of a nominated GA article to agree upon the quality of the article before the nomination has been put forward in order to avoid "edit wars".

I note the discussion on the precipitated GA nomination in the section above. In my opinion, the article cannot hope to achieve all six of the GA criteria and I, therefore, have no alternative but to declare the article has now been assessed as a FAIL.

I would urge you all to re-nominate the article, in, say, six months time from now, when, hopefully, all senior and experienced editors of this article will have agreed upon its worth.

Tovojolo (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The GA criteria simply does not say this. Look, everyone, I nominated it in good faith and I strongly believe I did nothing wrong. Good luck with the work and give us a shout if you need a hand, though I won't hold my breath! Btw, there's no minimum time between nominations and junior editors can definitely be equally involved in the process Tom (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

style and themes article; ownership

Awadewit and Simmaren, it would be appreciated if you would please publish the styles and themes page you are working on. And any others you have worked up to a similar degree. I don't see a need for such pages to be kept under wraps until they are so developed that a later editor who wants to contribute can only make minor tweaks or catastrophic restructures. I quite see that you do invite people who seek the pages out to work with you, but this is a far cry from opening hte page to any of the presumably hundreds of Wikipedia readers who would be competent and capable to edit, and contribute substantially to, such pages.

What you're doing seems to me very commendable - I'm taking an interest because I need to know what my students will be reading along with the prescribed course materials - but at the same time it definitely fits some of the criteria for wp:own editing. Sills bend (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sills bend, anyone can write a themes and style section for this article. It would save Simmaren and I a lot of trouble, let me tell you! Our draft cannot be posted to a new Wikipedia article at this time as the bulk of it is in bullet-point form. I don't think we can be accused of article ownership since we are inviting people to work on the draft whenever they come by. In fact, I got involved in this article when I came by, did a peer review, and Simmaren asked me to help out. Both the article and the draft are open to anyone to edit and we frequently link to our notes and ask people to help us out. Unfortunately, nobody seems to want to do so. We are slow workers, yes, but we hope to make progress soon. Again, if you could help us, that would be much appreciated. Austen scholarship is vast and trying to summarize it accurately is extremely difficult. You hint in your post that you have students - if you are an expert in this area, we would love your help. I am only a graduate student, after all! Awadewit (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you need help (and I can see that writing an entire article on such a subject yourselves is a fairly horrible job) surely the best way of getting it would be putting the page someplace a lot of potential contributors can see it. Sills bend (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks

There are a lot of redlinks in this article - does anyone want to take on the project of creating stubs for them? I see many WP:DYKs there! Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt there's much to be said for Thomas Egerton, but Cadell is noteworthy. I'm very surprised there is no article for Richard Bentley.Sills bend (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to write stubs about Cadell and Bentley, then? Awadewit (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen

One of the subarticles that Simmaren and I have already placed on Wikipedia, Reception history of Jane Austen, has received little attention since we posted it several months ago. As it is easier to write the daughter articles in a series and then summarize them in the main article, it would help move the Jane Austen article along if this article could be worked on as well. Currently, the "Reception" article has two needs: 1) It needs a thorough copyedit; and 2) The "Adaptations" section needs to be expanded. I was going to read Jane Austen in Hollywood and Jane Austen on Screen in order to flesh out the "Adaptations" section, but if someone else could take on this project, that would be extremely helpful. Once these two tasks are completed, we can take the article to peer review and then to featured article candidacy. We would really appreciate any help from the dedicated Janeites here! Awadewit (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reception history article is an instance of what I was pointing out re your styles and themes page. What's there is good, but the whole essay is massively skewed toward professional and academic critical responses. There is nothing at all about Jane Austen societies for instance, nor about sequels and continuations, nor stage productions. That to me is a major POV flaw. But correcting an imbalance of that kind when the article is already so worked up, long, and structured, is an unnecessarily difficult task. I don't actually understand why you have cordoned off 'Janeite' from reception history. They are intimately intertwined. Academe does not own Austen.

Because the style and themes topic is one that common readers will have a great deal to say about, it's really not fair to do the same draft thing with that page.Sills bend (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reception article is not "massively skewed". First, it does have an entire section on "Jane Austen in the modern imagination" which is the beginning of a description of the sequels, adaptations, etc. (so the article does mention them). I know this section is incomplete - that is precisely why I was asking for help. The entire article does not have to be restructured to fix the problems you mention - it needs to be expanded. As you will note, there is also an entire page dedicated to Jane Austen in popular culture that has branched off which will also cover much of this material. Janeite has been split off because there is a lot to say about that topic independently, but as you will note, the "Reception" article still discusses the role of "Janeites" throughout history. Sills bend, if you have problems with these articles, you are welcome to contribute to them and improve them. Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

er, yes it *is* skewed towards academic and professional criticism - that's a simple observation about proportion and ordering. The article is already too long, so expanding section 6 doesn't seem like a good idea to me (and I don't think you'd like me to delete things you've written) and in any case, expanding it properly would involve going over ground already covered in the earlier parts of the article - how would one justify separating Chapman's scholarly activities from an account of WWI and Oxford Janeitism, for instance? I actually think it's not the primary issue since reception history is a special interest topic, but I think you should publish the themes and style page - one that could be quite important - before it goes down the same path - thousands of other intelligent people read Austen and know the literature, and will have much to contribute.Sills bend (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, it is in bullet-point form. It cannot be made a Wikipedia article at this time. If you would like to help us write it out, please do so here. Awadewit (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd better just leave it all to you. Sills bend (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Janeite by any means (my opinion is rather similar to Mark Twain's, actually, regarding the whole "dig her up and beat her with her own shin bone" thing :), but I have access to both books you mentioned, Awadewit, and am willing to help expand the "Adaptations" section. The Cambridge companion to literature on screen may be helpful in this endeavor, as well. I'll see what I can find tomorrow. María (habla conmigo) 23:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be wonderful - thank you so much. Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Janeite

Janeite is a stub on Jane Austen fandom that I started about six months ago. Unfortunately, no one has improved the article since then. Does anyone want to take on the project of writing about Austen fandom? Awadewit (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ToC

<div style="clear:both;"></div>
{{TOClimit|limit=2}}
{{clear}}

I am unclear of the purpose of truncating the subsections from the ToC, as the code above specifies. This makes it relatively difficult to jump to specific points of Jane Austen's life. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a lot of white space - that was the reason. I don't see any problem leaving it this way, unless the TOC gets too long. Awadewit (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I understand that Infoboxes are optional, and that it has been discussed in previous talk archives. However, implementing it can provide readers with supplementry information at a glance; for example quickly organizing catalogs or lists. It does not clutter this page, and greatly improves the consistency of Wikipedia's articles concerning biographies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Once again I would like to argue against the infobox for this article. What supplementary information would be provided that is not already provided in the lead? Consistency is a convincing argument for me, especially considering not all people fall into neat categories. For example, should Jane Austen's "occupation" be listed as novelist? Did she "live by her pen" or not? Listing her as a novelist would require us to decide that. What genres did she write in? Scholars don't even agree on that point. Including an infobox encourages people to add to silly lists of "influenced" and "influences" as well, which just generates unnecessarily long debate and means nothing to readers who don't know the long lists of names. Those names mean more in context, which we will provide in the article when we add a section on her writing. Awadewit (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jane Austen would have been supported by her family whether she earned any money from writing or not, and the money she earned from writing did not amount to a middle-class income in itself (though it would have been a very nice supplement to a middle-class income), so it's hard to argue that she "lived by her pen". In any case, most of the money for Emma (and of course all of that for Northanger Abbey and Persuasion) wasn't paid until after Jane Austen's death. Jane Austen also seemed to show very little interest in direct personal contact with the professional literary writers of the time (see talk page archive)... Churchh (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your view on the infobox, though? Awadewit (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My view is quite simple. We don't use an {{Infobox Writer}}; which automatically and incorrectly classifies her as what you've stated above. We can use an {{Infobox Person}} (biography) which classifies her as a human, she exist as a real person (not as some fictitious character), some supplementary information about family (genealogy), highlights of her life, and so on. We don't have to fill out every field, and the ones you don't want we can delete. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But I still don't see the need. What supplementary information is necessary? And I have also seen infobox creep - these fields tend to get readded by industrious editors who feel that they must be filled out. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Add a comment to tell them the all the fields that have been filled out are all that are needed; the one you placed to tell people not to create an infobox worked. Another method is to delete the fields not used after we decide what fields to fill out. Since you show keen interest and intimate knowledge, I believe you would be a better determiner or what should go in the infobox. The basics I can imagine are: birth place and time, death place and time, final resting place, parents, kin, coat of arms, and the caption for the image. The infobox is not intended to replace the lead; it provides simple and known information at a glance, such as her genealogy. I tend to think of it as an extended thumbnail. ¶Occasionally simply providing an infobox tells the reader that this is a biography. Not everybody knows who she is, some people have no idea, this gives them a quick glance about where she stands before they read the lead. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see a need for this at all. Why do readers need to know Austen's genealogy at a glance? Austen is not famous because of her family and we have family trees to provide that information. The first sentence of the lead tells readers this is a biography and the major facts of her notability. Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of need, but a matter of consistency. It won't hurt the article, or clutter it; and in fact, I think it complements the ToC. In a matter of speaking, it's like an extended thumbnail image for biographies. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering infoboxes are not required and many biographies do not have them, I don't see it as a matter of consistency. I actually think infoboxes are aesthetically unpleasing and do clutter the article for no informational gain. The information you are proposing to include in the infobox is not a summary of what makes Austen important, so I don't see how it could really help readers. Considering the consensus has consistently been against having an infobox in this article, I'm not sure I see the need at this point. Awadewit (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, infoboxes have been brought up three times before; and the consensus is largely constituted by you. Nevertheless, I'd like to hear from a different editor before we decide on the matter. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond personal preferences, infoboxes have been widely accepted by all project groups as a useful device that immediately establishes primary information for the reader. Consider its implementation in this case as Infobox:Person in order to detail some for the varied aspects of her life and career. FWiW, infoboxes generally enhance an article and would certainly not look out of place in this instance. Bzuk (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

I largely disagree, Bzuk, as I see no apparent enhancement that any biographical infobox may offer in this circumstance. "Widely accepted" is not synonymous with "mandatory" -- the two main contributors (and not to mention those who are most familiar with the subject material), do not consider an infobox necessary for Austen's article, and that should mean more than various random drive-by comments from unaffiliated editors who are mainly seeking consistency. I can name a dozen FA-class bios with no infoboxes that do not suffer because of it. I also believe that such well developed articles do not require something so elementary as an infobox, whereas less developed articles may benefit from them. Everything a reader needs to know is in the lead. María (habla conmigo) 12:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concern, but also remember that casting aspersions does not bolster your case. An opinion was offered, nothing more. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

I meant nothing against you, Bzuk, or anyone else in particular for that matter. I would like to point out, however, that I wasn't asked to comment here and that this certainly wasn't a "tag team" operation; I have the article watchlisted and agree wholeheartedly with Awadewit and Simmaren on this issue, that's all. There's no anti-infobox cabal and no need to assume the worst on your part. María (habla conmigo) 18:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag team? Cabal? Usually we have to indict before we defend. Nevertheless, I understand your reasoning. I see infoboxes helpful when we scan for statics seeing what time periods are biographies are strong at and so on, I also certainly don't think they're invasive to the point that we need this much discussion. If you strongly believe in such, then I guess this proposal has receded. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

The Bibliography section is quite large, although the consensus is in progress for WP:LAYOUT, do you think its possible to splinter the sections not used to verify the article into a Further reading section? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The overwhelming impression that a newcomer gets is that there is preponderance of well documented material but it is at first glance, very difficult to digest. FWiW, as well, a careful reading of the cite notes indicated multiple instances of the same author with different works. Bzuk (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

All of the works listed will eventually be used. There is no need to split the list. As with most Wikipedia articles, this is one is under development. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)