Talk:Dorothy L. Sayers: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:24, 29 September 2023 editSchroCat (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers113,250 edits →Infobox title dispute ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:27, 29 September 2023 edit undoDronebogus (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,247 edits →Infobox title dispute: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 94:		Line 94:
	:::I’m mostly annoyed you’re breaking a pretty standard and uncontroversial format, something at ] maintenance level, because you don’t like the way it looks. ] (]) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)		:::I’m mostly annoyed you’re breaking a pretty standard and uncontroversial format, something at ] maintenance level, because you don’t like the way it looks. ] (]) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
	::::Go ahead, be as fake-angry as you wish. Do you think it sensible to have the name Dorothy L. Sayers (or Dorothy Leigh Sayers) appear fives times in the upper few inches of the article? The MOS and template documentation are both flexible on approaches to IBs because the consensus of the community is that flexibility is needed where common sense can be used. Repeating the name fives times is too much. Why are you continuing to press this point just because you don’t like the way it looks? - ] (]) 21:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)		::::Go ahead, be as fake-angry as you wish. Do you think it sensible to have the name Dorothy L. Sayers (or Dorothy Leigh Sayers) appear fives times in the upper few inches of the article? The MOS and template documentation are both flexible on approaches to IBs because the consensus of the community is that flexibility is needed where common sense can be used. Repeating the name fives times is too much. Why are you continuing to press this point just because you don’t like the way it looks? - ] (]) 21:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
			:::::No, it’s not “common sense” if it looks like it’s broken, and people will try to fix it only to get shot down, maximizing the useless, unnecessary maintenance workload because the two main authors said so. Crop the image and it’s fine, but we can’t do that because it adds flavor or historical context or some rubbish like that. ] (]) 21:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:27, 29 September 2023

Template:Vital article

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Anglicanism Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

University of Oxford High‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women in Religion High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 16 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deemodango.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

her friends

There is needed a very substantial section on her female friends, who were at least as much a part of her life as her male lovers or husbands. I'm going to add a section from the new Mo Moulton book,The Mutual Admiration Society: How Dorothy Sayers and her Oxford circle remade the world for women, and make sure we have bios on the other people in this group--at least 4 of the other 6 are notable enough for articles here. It was a group of 7 (or perhaps 6) women friends from University who did call themselves that and remained in close contact all their lives. It's been discussed in the other bios of her also. (Moulton is a 2019 book, so it's understandable that it hasn't been used before; it is perhaps less understandable why this entire aspect of her life wasn't included. This makes for an interest note on our superficial coverage of feminists.)

To start with. I add a sentence from that book on the nature of her relationship with Cournos; there are other good quotes also. An understanding of John Cournos is relevant here also, and we may need an article on him, though he's much less imprortant than any of the women. It's particularly relevant with respect to anti-semitism--the current article suggests , rather weirdly, that her having had a Jewish lover was evidence of her antisemitism, when in fact the effect of the affair was likely to have been quite the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great. But please revert the current sentence until it's made clear who's saying what and why. And fix the mis-spellings. It makes no sense as is. Anna (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be adding a section of friends including the MAS and C.S. Lewis, it's in progress in sandbox. however 'friends' seems like such a odd section in itself... any ideas on how to organise it? feel free to edit if it's already added at the point of reading this Deemodango (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh?

"Often pronounced /ˈseɪ.ərz/, but Sayers herself preferred /sɛərz/ and encouraged the use of her middle initial to facilitate this pronunciation." How does the use or non-use of the middle initial have any effect on the pronunciation of her last name? --Khajidha (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it creates further separation from the long EE sound in "Dorothy". St Anselm (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There was a contemporary actress named Dorothy Sayers. So I have read in a credible source, but I have no idea where, though it may well be in either the Brabazon or the Reynolds biography. Anyway, the reason for her favoring the middle initial seems to be disambiguation rather than pphonetics. Dandrake (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Acclaim to balance Criticism?

The "Criticism" section is well flushed out, but leaves a reader wondering if that's all she ever received.

However, it seems that she may have also received some acclaim for her work. Perhaps the "Criticism" section can be balanced by an "Acclaim" or "Awards" section. It seems there are some writers and scholars who highly recommend her work.

DeminJanu (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Caplan-Bricker, Nora. "An Overlooked Novel from 1935 by the Godmother of Feminist Detective Fiction". The New Yorker. Retrieved 3 September 2020.
https://crimereads.com/dorothy-l-sayers-a-crime-readers-guide-to-the-classics/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Too much "further reading"

We currently have 19 works listed in the "further reading" section - several were just added. It's starting to look like any article or book with "Dorothy L Sayers" in the title is being listed. This is not useful for readers; there's no indication to them which of these would provide new information and which would just rehash the article in more detail.It's just a long, context-free list.

from Misplaced Pages:Further_reading: The Further reading section may be expanded until it is substantial enough to provide broad bibliographic coverage of the subject. However, the section should be limited in size. Misplaced Pages is not a catalogue of all existing works. ... When the list needs to be trimmed, preference in retention should normally be given to notable works over non-notable works.

They list needs to be trimmed by knowledgeable editors, please! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged anti-Semitism

It's rather a pity that her main expression of her opinions of 'the Jews' was in an essay contributed to the book The Future of the Jews, by J J Lynx, which was deleted from the published book when it was already in galley proofs. This, being now an unpublished work (however involuntarily on her part), is still under copyright and will remain so for a long time. Hence, since Sayers' literary estate does not permit publication of the work or excerpts therefrom, the entire matter of her attitudes on the subject must be considered an open question until later in this century. Dandrake (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Victor Gollancz

The article as currently written states (9 Jun 2023) that Sayers worked for Victor Gollancz in the early 1920s, but he didn't start his publishing company until 1927. I suspect there's been an error somewhere but I don't know enough to correct it with certainty. Does anyone have definitive details? JohnGHissong (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

She could have worked for him at Ernest Benn. There may be some confusion between Victor Gollancz and Victor Gollancz, much as there can be between Ernest Benn and Ernest Benn. DuncanHill (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox title dispute

@SchroCat: @Tim riley:, why do you insist on removing something that is universally standard just because it was added by someone you don’t like? Are you literally trying to spite me over adding a title to an infobox? Dronebogus (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you take the aggression out of your comments? For a start this isn't "universally standard" (whether you italicise it or not!) If you look at the template documentation, you'll see it's not always necessary, particularly if the birth name field has been filled, as it has here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the documentation and using the first parameter is “suggested”. Your not using it is being weird for weirdness’s sake. Dronebogus (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, any chance you can take the aggression and bad faith out of your comment? - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Putting the name both above and below the picture looks fairly silly. I don't like it when WP is made to look silly. We should strive to present a professional and competent text. Tim riley talk 18:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again. Can someone please catch me up on this? Davest3r08 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I have a major idea of what's happening here. Davest3r08 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, they do have a fair point. Seeing the name on the IB twice is a bit weird tbh. Davest3r08 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Presumably the reason for deleting it is that the name already appears within the image. Would both of you be satisfied if we went back to the previous portrait, which does not include her name? That way there would be no objection to including the parameter.---Ehrenkater (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not allowed, alas, as the image is free use and the other isn't.Tim riley talk 18:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Watching a few talk pages here and seeing the collateral damage spill out from here onto those, giving my suggestion: any reason not to crop the image (removing the text below Sayers) and then adding the name param? - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I was planning on that actually. Dronebogus (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, doable, but for myself I prefer the untampered version. Gives flavour, I think, but what think others? Tim riley talk 18:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I also prefer the uncropped photo layout but it's merely my own personal judgement, not that I think the alternative would be wrong. Also, I rather shy away from thinking things should be "universally standard" (and I'd be happier if accomplished editors were left to get on with productive editing). Thincat (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I also don’t want those accomplished editors to just make up and enforce their own rules on the fly and get mad when people don’t follow them. Dronebogus (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahem, that is why I asked "What think others?" Tim riley talk 21:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No-one is making anything up. No IB fields are set in stone (much like having an IB in place at all) and the fields are there only when they do something useful. The IB already has the name in it, so to have it twice is even more redundant than having it once, given it's the page title and given twice in the opening sentence. Do we think readers need to have the name hammered into them five times in the top couple of inches of the article? - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right. Tim riley talk 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Removing the title in the infobox was not an improvement; neither was the chnage of photo; this change would need consensus. St Anselm (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't: free images must be used over non-free ones. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right - my mistake. But the consensus is still to have the title. St Anselm (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No there isn’t: that’s what’s being discussed now, unless you can provide a link to the consensus discussion... - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I’ve uploaded a crop, can I replace the current one with that one and add the title? Dronebogus (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot of effort for something that isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I see the image has been moved to Commons. Are we sure of its British copyright status, or doesn't that matter? I always hate it when Commons images are ruled out by the image review at FAC. Tim riley talk 17:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I’m just assuming it’s PD because it said so and there was no warning against moving it. Dronebogus (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m mostly annoyed you’re breaking a pretty standard and uncontroversial format, something at wikignome maintenance level, because you don’t like the way it looks. Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead, be as fake-angry as you wish. Do you think it sensible to have the name Dorothy L. Sayers (or Dorothy Leigh Sayers) appear fives times in the upper few inches of the article? The MOS and template documentation are both flexible on approaches to IBs because the consensus of the community is that flexibility is needed where common sense can be used. Repeating the name fives times is too much. Why are you continuing to press this point just because you don’t like the way it looks? - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it’s not “common sense” if it looks like it’s broken, and people will try to fix it only to get shot down, maximizing the useless, unnecessary maintenance workload because the two main authors said so. Crop the image and it’s fine, but we can’t do that because it adds flavor or historical context or some rubbish like that. Dronebogus (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Categories: