Talk:The Watsons

Helen Baker

I am removing the link, as it is obviously to the wrong Helen Baker. Kostaki mou (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for edits on 26 October 2021

Rationale for edits to article:

'undertaken' instead of 'attempted' – because the completions were actually completed, not just attempted.

deletion of James Austen-Leigh dates – the article is not about him. Anyone wanting to know the dates can go to the linked article on his memoir.

'opening' instead of 'timeframe' because it is not meaningful to talk of a novel's timeframe when it is very far from complete.

'vicar of ' rather than 'vicar to': the latter is simply incorrect English.

deletion of reference to Regency era situation: the description of the completion suggests it is set around 1790 (sixty years before 1850). This is long before the Regency era, which started in 1811.

'space' instead of 'leg-room': the latter phrase does not apply in any normal way to the act of writing.

deletion of reference to 'rapacious Austen industry': this is a very one sided statement with no attempt at balance or a counterview in the text, and in any case is not relevant to discussion of the particular adaptations mentioned – whether they were done for rapacious motives is not the point.

I've removed "rapacious Austen industry". I see the contributor's point, but it's not relevant here, neither is it WP:NEUTRAL.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Self publishing

Some of the works mentioned in the ==Continuations== section are self-published. I'm thinking of removing these as spam links.--AntientNestor (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I recently removed a self published version from the Sanditon article. Sbishop (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd give a hesitant welcome, since I've previously removed self-published work from Eyam, but with some prior cautions. In the present economic climate, self-publishing does not necessarily mean vanity publishing. The WP article on that makes the point that many now respected names self published originally. The test in this case might be whether the works have had any kind of significant reception per WP:RS. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point—I'll check how a work has been received before taking any action.--AntientNestor (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Done.--AntientNestor (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have deleted 'Joan Aiken has written sequels to several Jane Austen novels, among them her Emma Watson: The Watsons Completed '. This wasn't self published but like her other books, issued by established publishers. Sbishop (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll look at this one again.--AntientNestor (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks as if AntientNestor has misinterpreted the guidelines he has been using to justify wholescale deletions without even checking if the works are actually self-published. I've reversed them since guidelines only suggest deletion if links are being used to promote a work commercially; instead the point being made in the article is about the continuing fashion in Jane Austin continuations. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't give me time to respond. I agree that Emma Watson: The Watsons Completed (from Gollancz) shouldn't have been included. The others seem to be self-published or vanity publications and unacceptably promotional. I admit that I haven't read the books for myself and can't comment on their quality (which, of course, would be original research) but my point is not accepting promotional material on Wikipedia.--AntientNestor (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Directly below the guideline you originally quoted is WP:ABOUTSELF which details the circumstances in which sourcing to such material is legitimate. The point in question is not their quality (or present availability) but their existence as an example of a literary trend. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)