Talk:Tom Brown's School Days

Active discussions

Can a version page have only one blue-link edition entry?Edit

@EncycloPetey: It would be great if you could participate in the relevant discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed versions pageEdit

Following Hesperian's suggestion and EncycloPetey's feedback at Wikisource:Scriptorium, I propose changing Tom Brown's School Days (redirecting Tom Brown's School Days (6th ed) now) to a versions page as follow:

notes (in Template:Versions): Tom Brown's School Days is a novel by Thomas Hughes, originally published in 1857 (Cambridge: Macmillan) under title Tom Brown's School Days, also published under the titles School Days at Rugby , Tom Brown at Rugby and Tom Brown's School Days at Rugby.

--Neo-Jay (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research @Neo-Jay:, but do all of these really need to have their own page on Wikisource? I mean, is the text actually any different between them? It's really only worth having multiple editions here where there there exists editorial changes to the text. (It's possible that the 1857 edition might be a good one, and then we could perhaps set up a comparative text project over on Wikiversity that examines the differences between them. But only if there are differences.) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
First thing that I notice is that all the printings/editions entitled "School Days at Rugby" were printed in the United States. These may be a separate "American" edition, which is not uncommon among publishers. The title of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone became Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US. The question is then: Are any of these different texts from the British editions, or simply a different title? British editions are sometimes altered for an American reading public, so that references to "trousers" become "pants", "braces" become "suspenders", etc., but it is also possible that these are simply American printings of a corresponding British edition. If the latter is the case, then we'd need to know which edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Second point: Why isn't the first edition on the list? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank Sam Wilson and EncycloPetey for your comments. (1) About the differences between these editions. The 1857 3rd edition and the 1870 6th edition are available at Google Books and I have not compared them. But I think that the newer editions might have at least some correction of typos. And the 1870 6th edition was illustrated by a different artist from the 1911 6th edition. (2) About the first edition. It is indicated in a note from WorldCat's 1858 5th edition page that the 1st edition was published in 1857 by Cambridge, Macmillan. However, among the eighteen 1857 editions listed in WorldCat, only six of them have edition number (2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition), and others have not. I cannot find which ones are the 1st editions. So I have not included the first edition in the list.--Neo-Jay (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If you find a first edition that says it's a first edition, it's not ;-) So, unless someone has updated a cataloge entry to specifically note the fact that it is a first edititon, it's unlikely to say it. Not that every edition that doesn't have a number is a 1st, of course! :-)

Anyway, I think the edition list looks good and an edition page could be created.

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank Sam Wilson very much. I got your point. Unfortunately WorldCat has not annotated which one is the first edition. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Sam's and Petey's comments are worth looking into, but even as it is above, I support Neo-Jay's proposal as quite clearly an improvement to Wikisource.

In partial response to Sam, we know that the 6th edition contains a new author's preface. That justified us continuing to host the 6th edition even after someone puts the 1st edition up... and the 1st edition justifies itself.

In partial response to Petey, I think you'll find that the "Cambridge" referred to in the proposed versions page is the Cambridge in Cambridgeshire, England.

Hesperian 01:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sam, to add to Hesperian's comment: The particular 6th edition we currently have also includes numerous illustrations especially made by the artist Louis Rhead. This is one reason it was chosen when no usable first edition source file could be easily found. Editions can be valuable for reasons other than changes to the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Any edition that substantively differs from the others should be included. :) I guess I mean 'work' instead of 'text'. I just mean that there's no point in including what are basically reprints. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank Hesperian, EncycloPetey, and Sam Wilson for your discussion. Please let me know what else I need to do to improve this versions page. Many thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Administrators @EncycloPetey, @Hesperian: Can we conclude that Tom Brown's School Days can be unprotected and changed to a versions page now? --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought so. Hesperian 04:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I reckon. :) Let's find a first-edition scan too. Huzza! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hesperian: Many thanks. So would you please unprotect Tom Brown's School Days now? It seems that Administrator EncycloPetey also does not oppose it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have preferred Petey to unprotect what he protected. However he has been around these last few days yet is no longer checking in here. Unprotected. Hesperian 14:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have changed it to a versions page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Tom Brown's School Days" page.