Jump to content

Talk:Diana Wynne Jones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Secret

Submitted for your approval (or not). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" website

I returned the link to the infobox. Although the site is fan-operated, and not a general RS for BLP purposes, it was sanctioned by the article subject, who contributed material and participated in its activities before her illness. I've seen similar fan-controlled, author-approved sites in other infoboxes. I tried to identify it as "author-designated, fan-operated" in the infobox, but couldn't get the coding right, so I added clarifying text to the EL section. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Yes, she really is dead. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this; clearly WP values policy over accuracy, and I can see the reasoning; you have no reason to believe me when I tell you that I have direct knowledge of this information. Print publication will eventually catch up with reality, and WP will eventually catch up with print. Airdrake (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks sadly that she has indeed expired. We have already compromised our policies and guidelines using our editorial judgment to add the unreliable comments. Wikipedia is not obligated to publish such unverified claims at all. I am glad you don't want to edit war about it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? http://www.tor.com/blogs/2011/03/remembering-diana-wynne-jones Airdrake (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of notability. A blog is generally not a reliable source. The Tor blog is not an exception. See WP:BLPSPS.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/27/diana-wynne-jones-obituary Airdrake (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's been added to the article, resolving the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References (nearly bare URL)

Several references were bluelink sourcenames such as "Article in The Guardian" (previous refs).

After working on awards, mainly, and adding two real references, I converted all of those others to bluelink "(item)" with the sourcename such as "The Guardian" outside the link (current refs) --without visiting even to confirm that links work. (I visited only the one bare URL in order to expand it and get the title "The Official Diana ...". --P64 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter, Mixed Magics and reissue novels

quoting the article "The Harry Potter books are frequently compared to the works of Diana Wynne Jones. Many of her earlier children's books were out of print in recent years, but have now been re-issued for the young audience whose interest in fantasy and reading was spurred by Harry Potter.[3][4]"

The two given sources may be sufficient although the references need to be completed. The text needs clarification: which Jones books compared by whom on what grounds? which early out of print books were brought back?

Regarding the Chrestomanci series (possibly branded "The Worlds of Chrestomanci" both in US and UK):

  • in the UK, an original novella Stealer of Souls (later published separately) and three old short stories were published as Mixed Magics: four tales of Chrestomanci. The four 1977-88 novels were reissued in a matching set. All five cover illustrations by Paul Slater include "The Worlds of Chrestomanci" in white block letters arranged in a circle (example). ISFDB lists May 2000 for all five books.
  • in the US, the four novels were reissued 1997 to 1999 in a matching set. All four cover illustrations by Greg Newbold include include stone arch and stylized smoke to frame the primary illustration in classic tombstone shape (example). All show "A Chrestomanci Book" in white block letters along the bottom edge. A few years later we have "The Chrestomanci Quartet" with the main painting full size, no stone/smoke framework ([1]). The first US Mixed Magics (hardcover, April 2001) [2] matched the 1997-1999 reissue of the four novels.

Harry Potter #1 was published 1997/1998 UK/US. In the US, "The book reached the top of the New York Times list of best-selling fiction in August 1999, and stayed near the top of that list for much of 1999 and 2000."[3] That's too late to explain the new Chrestomanci set. In the UK, however, Rowling & Harry's success may explain not only the new set but even the writing of "Stealer of Souls" by Jones. (and, of course, her full-time return to the series, evident in Conrad's Fate and The Pinhoe Egg).

(In part these are notes toward improvement of Mixed Magics, an orphan stub that I discovered yesterday after reading the book a few days ago. Comments or references that go beyond the limited needs of the biography will be appreciated.) --P64 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English?

Is there good reason to call her British rather than English? She was evacuated from London to Wales but not raised there. --P64 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know from WP:UKNATIONALS and related Talk that [a] writing from scratch i would call her English and put her in English categories, and ask in Talk whether anyone knows better; [b] British shouldn't be changed to English or vice versa except by consensus; [c] it's useful but not decisive to have a reliable source regarding how she identified herself. --P64 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She declared herself to be 'technically Welsh' seems odd to call her English.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-author-inspired-movie-hit-2380214 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.37.143 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After editing the page to describe Diana as Welsh, for which I provided a source, I was blocked from editing on Wikipedia.
My edit was consistent with Wikipedia's guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Nationality_of_people_from_the_United_Kingdom#Changing_an_existing_UK_nationality and the advise in that guide to 'be bold'.
The description of Diana as English, not even British remains at odds with her own description of herself as 'technically Welsh' and ignores her ancestry, parentage and the clear exposure to Welsh culture and language that permeates her work. She even described how the rhythm of the Welsh language played in her mind as she wrote.
Howl's moving castle was even nominated for 'Greatest Welsh Novel' https://www.walesartsreview.org/greatest-welsh-novel-23-howls-moving-castle-by-diana-wynne-jones/ 80.192.37.143 (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UKCHANGE says a number of things besides "be bold", most notably, "Before making a change: Consider why the existing nationality was chosen." Diana Wynne Jones was born in England and lived there her entire life except for about four months at age 5 when she lived in Wales. A comment to a Welsh journalist that she's "technically Welsh" (unexplained, but probably referring to her father's ancestry) doesn't make her Welsh.
BTW, I think you're mistaken about having been blocked. I don't see any evidence of this in the block log Dan Bloch (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That she was 'English' is assumed purely from her place of birth, which itself is no basis for assuming how she identified. Are there any sources for her referring to herself as English, in the absence of such a source British would seem more appropriate. Is Rudyard Kipling Indian, Boris Johnson American, Bradley Wiggins Belgian? Birth and National identity have never been one and the same and particularly not so in the UK.
However, even in plumping for British we must choose to assume that the only source we have on her own identity is somehow invalid and to do so we have to make subjective decisions about what she might have meant by the word 'technically' or that Diana, an author, did not know that the word technically means, "according to the exact meaning; properly, strictly".
Had the words been followed by a rebuttal of Welsh identity, rather than an explanation of links to Wales, you might have a point, but there is no evidence that she rejected her Welshness. Indeed Diana published all her works under the name Diana Wynne Jones, rather than her married name Diana Burrows, an act that would be funny for anyone shunning Welshness.
The 'technically' may have stemmed, for example, from the old fashioned view that one has the nationality of one's father - but if so that would still imply she identified as Welsh.
In any case the facts remain that the only source anyone has advanced is one in which she referred to herself as 'technically Welsh'. 80.192.37.143 (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes her English is that she lived her entire life in England. She also wrote in English, and she didn't speak Welsh.
The "I'm technically Welsh" statement is not a strong argument. It's the only known remark to this effect that she made, and it's a fairly weak statement. She didn't say, "I think of myself as Welsh", which would indeed have justified a change to the Wikipedia article. Also note that whatever the reasoning behind "technically", it somehow gives her father's Welsh ancestry preeminence over her mother's English ancestry. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan Thomas wrote in English and did not speak Welsh - that is a weak argument in the extreme. Tove Jansson was born in Russia, wrote in Swedish, but is Finnish, to connote the language she wrote in to her national identity is absurd, especially as many Welsh people do not speak Welsh. The Welsh language never-the-less peppers her writing, from the Saucepan song in Howls Moving Castle, to the names of people, animals, and objects in Cart and Cwidder.
Where is the statement that justifies her listing as English, not British - she is referred to British in several other locations on Wikipedia, including her bibliography. Do you have any statement made by her where she refers to herself as English? With the source I provided you are assigning value (or lack of) based on your interpretations of what she might have meant rather than treating the source as a source. Whether she assigned her father's ancestry as more significant is a matter for her, indeed the fact that she describes herself as 'technically Welsh' given she knew perfectly her mother's origin more supports a Welsh identity.
As a person that celebrated Welsh culture and describes its formative influence on her life, dream, thoughts and works - it seems utterly perverse in the absence of any other source to describe her as English over British especially given the only source we have describing her own identity is one in which she uses the word Welsh.
In this source - her own website https://web.archive.org/web/20010630143944/http://www.leemac.freeserve.co.uk/answers2.htm
she said
"I see that Tim Wynne Jones and I are going to have to meet some time and go into our ancestry. Welsh people do this, even though Jones is such a widespread name - 'Oh, your auntie was DOREEN Jones! She was my second cousin twice removed! Wenallt Jones was my father's third cousin!' That sort of thing."
In this statement she is clearly talking about a group that includes her when she says 'Welsh people'.
This website, now only available on waybackmachine, is full of references to Wales, visits to Wales, spending 'lots of time' in Wales, the Welsh language, her Welsh family and ancestry. 80.192.37.143 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this Diana was originally described as British in this article before being edited to English without the addition of sources on provided justification. 80.192.37.143 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm fine with changing it back to British and calling it a day. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited Jones's nationality back to British.
Given the above conversation it is clear that Diana saw herself as Welsh, and we have no reference to her viewing herself as English.
My personal reading is that the article should use Welsh, given the sources in this discussion, but as it was previously agreed by editors to use British I can see no reason why it was amended to English without further discussion. 2A00:23C8:8498:7400:9442:B22:3EAC:F18B (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the edit to British was reverted - why is this being reverted when it was agreed to use British following the provision of sources, in teh above discussion?
The revision asserted a potential Living person bio violation - Diana is not living. 2A00:23C8:8498:7400:A87A:A907:E489:B3FB (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mjks28 you keep reverting a change that is inline with the agreement between contributors in this talk page. You have then directed me to take to the talk before editing the article, even though the edit I am making is in line with the contents of this discussion. Why? 2A00:23C8:8498:7400:A87A:A907:E489:B3FB (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Prize runner up

Today I deleted this regarding the once-in-a-lifetime Guardian Prize, which Jones won in 1978. The August editorial comments are mine.

"She was runner-up for that award in 1981[citation needed] [clarification needed]"

On the other hand, I documented her three (not two) commended runners up for the more prestigious Carnegie Medal. --P64 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Fantasy

Jones contributed to The Encyclopedia of Fantasy (1997). I infer that she was a volunteer editor (maybe paid for the major entry "Magic" or even paid by the word for minor entries). See The Tough Guide to Fantasyland#Origin. She describes going through all of the prospective entries with Chris Bell in order to help make cuts, identify gaps, and so on. They worked carefully through N to "Nunnery" before she had the Tough Guide inspiration; somewhere in O she began work on that book and slacked off as volunteer(i infer) editor.

Regarding this nonfiction/editorial work and expertise I have only added (nonfiction) "subject=Fantasy fiction" to the {{infobox writer}}. I can't do more without checking both Tough Guide and Encyclopedia front and back material at a public library. --P64 (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian coverage

--P64 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DWJ fansite

Previously we have linked www.leemac.freeserve.co.uk (the portion displayed) in {{infobox writer}}, termed that "The Official Diana Wynne Jones Website" in one reference, and provided the External link (copy-and-paste):

That homepage now displays a banner proclaiming "The Diana Wynne Jones Fansite" and this notice (copy-and-paste):

  • FACEBOOK PAGE
Diana is now on Facebook, with a new official fan site run by Diana's agent Laura Cecil. Please visit.

As leemac is now a Fansite in name, no longer Official, and DWJ no longer approves or participates of course, I removed it from the infobox and revised both the ref and the Ext link to say "The Diana Wynne Jones Fansite".

The new official site is "Diana Wynne Jones Fan Page" in name and I didn't mention it here (where it is inappropriate at least in the infobox).
--P64 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also section 2 #Official website.
The two fan sites, the formerly official Fansite and the Homepage, are now used as sources five times, in four References now refs# 4, 9, 18, 20. They are sources for reprints and for themselves, not for interpretation of DWJones. (#18 is my use today.)
I added two supposedly full Citations to the foot of section References and fashioned the five uses so that they link the full citations rather than omit (as previously) or omit so much information.
--P64 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed

My edit summary ends "tag Career {UPDATE NEEDED}" but I neglected to insert the tag {{update}}. The Career section does need update, for it ends with notice of two books expected "later in 2011".

It needs more [than update -P64]. Offhand I think we need some separation of Adaptations and Awards from the Career or whatever we call it --as in many writer biographies with those two headings, although there may be another way to do it.

--P64 (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Wynne Jones bibliography shows that we have previously updated there but not here. --P64 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Jones

The U.S. national library catalog, and thus WorldCat, may mix multiple people with the name.

December WorldCat now (compare my October interjection) lists no works by this Ursula Jones on that page "Jones, Ursula" --altho it remains the page for lccn-n2002-056752 which/who still has the works by this Ursula Jones in the Library of Congress. (Visit all three of these links and compare, as I did in October and again just now.)

The Witch's Children (US, 2003) at LCCat --record for the U.S. edition of Ursula's picture book, the earliest of 8 records that certainly fits this Ursula Jones. At that time during 2013 her publisher reported, "She has written a number of plays for children, but The Witch's Children is her first picture book. Ms. Jones lives in France, on the edge of the forest of Vaour."

2. [PW 2013-06-20] Publisher's Weekly provides info not in The Guardian source that I added to the article today, [ref name=chaldea]. Perhaps based on the same interview, or press conference, with Jones.

WorldCat: Ursula Jones shows more books certainly written by this Ursula and credits her with DWJ for some Audiobooks, as reader.

October evidently WorldCat now distinguishes another Ursula Jones from this one for all works except the Chaldea collaboration credited to DWJ primarily. I don't know how to find this Ursula Jones at WorldCat, however, before LC distinguishes them by LCCN (which routinely defines the URL at WorldCat). --P64 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... That is, I don't know how to find this Ursula Jones at WorldCat until the Library of Congress distinguishes this one from others by LCCN. There is no change in LCCatalogue concerning those 8 records of works by multiple Ursula Jones (see the first link in this section). But I haven't submitted any error report as I intended to do in October. --P64 (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--P64 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for The Islands of Chaldea
3. [4] HarperCollins Children's Books
4. [5] Goodreads, says "first publ. January 1, 2014 (maybe notional or book club?), 274pp
5. [6] The Guardian review 2014-02-14
6. [7] Kirkus review 2014-02-15 --gives U.S. publ date -04-22, 352pp
--P64, 20:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diana Wynne Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Diana Wynne Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Burrow?

Not quite fair to post this here but not sure where else to post: should John Burrow (husband of Diana Wynne Jones but also distinguished Anglo-Saxon and medieval professor) also have a page? If so I could work on one gladly. Cheers Miles Quest (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miles Quest: Hi. First, note that talk page are divided into sections. When you raise a new issue please use the "new section" tab or manually add a header. Otherwise the issue gets appended to the previous issue. I've added a header for this one.
Whether or not an article is justified in Wikipedia is determined by notability. The basic criteria for articles about people is that the person be mentioned in multiple secondary sources. This is true of John Burrow so yes, an article about him would be appropriate. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dan Bloch for this reply - that's great. I will do some research and have a go at setting up an article. And noted about starting new sections! Cheers Miles Quest (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diana_Wynne_Jones&oldid=1260022834"