Talk:Master and Commander

MichaelMaggs did you mean to change the page # for cite to Brown about the Cacafuego? If so, fine. It is far away from the page number on the Sophie. I am glad you found a place for the Author's note to this novel. There does need to be some explaining about prize money. In my pattern of reading, it was O'Brian's novels that explained it to me, put it in context for the sailors gaining the prize money, and how war was conducted then on the seas, after I wondered where the money came from in Jane Austen's Persuasion (novel). The series article never discusses the motivation of prize money or how the Royal Navy operated in that era. Add it to the series article or find a place here, perhaps a short section on the Age of sail or the Royal Navy, how it worked?

Your note about the Observer review, means you did not find it in Cunningham's book? I think those short ones were all in the Reviews section before I and others made changes to include the later reviews. But they had no more text than what you see as citations. I had assumed it was the The Observer Sunday newspaper in the UK, but that was an assumption. If not in Cunningham, where to look to find it? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Cacafuego is at Brown p85. Will think about the prize money question, but I'm reluctant for this article to have standalone text that effectively amounts to "interesting facts about how the Royal Navy worked in those days", as that will inevitably attract editors to add back more tangential and trivial things. Perhaps we can weave it in somehow. Not sure I left a note about the Observer, did I? Anyway, I ran out of time for that section, and still have more to do, including looking at that reference. I want to make sure all the Cunningham references cite both the original source and the fact that they were collected in the one book. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs You did not add that comment about the Observer, it was Trappist the Monk at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_and_Commander&diff=764230442&oldid=764225237, sorry. But in your additions of "via=Cummingham" in the citations at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_and_Commander&diff=next&oldid=764224531, you did not add that phrase to the Observer quote. The two edits are connected, yours and Trappist's, as the question of which Observer might, not positively, have been omitted if via=Cunningham were in the citation. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The addition of the {{clarify}} template was mine. Editor MichaelMaggs removed it without saying to which Observer the citation refers. There are a lot of Observer's as evidenced by the items listed at Observer and The Observer (disambiguation). My question is: which of those? Some other? I've restored the {{clarify}} template.

In the cs1|2 templates, |via= is a publisher parameter, not an author parameter. Cunningham is an author not a publisher. Since the cs1 templates using |via=Cunningham presumably cite quotes of others in Cunningham, the templates should simply cite Cunningham because it is simpler, because WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and because that puts the burden of sourcing those quotes on Cunningham and not on Wikipedia.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the Monk, As far as I can see there isn't any easy template-driven way to cite a reference which, as here, is quoted in another source. Not sure why, as this is must presumably be a pretty a common occurrence. The right thing to do would be to to format the text as recommended in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, along the following lines:

• John Smith, Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 99, cited in Paul Jones, Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 29.

but we lack a 'cited in' parameter. |Via= is the obvious and closest-available option, short of adding free text (outside the template) to every citation, which would be very clunky. According to WP:CS1 |Via= is not a publisher parameter but is intended for the "Name of the content deliverer (when they are not the publisher) ... It may be used when the content deliverer presents the source in a format other than the original". In this case, a book, edited - not authored - by Cunningham, is the means whereby the original source content is presented. So, |Via= seems the best currently available option.

There really ought to be something more specific, though. Any idea how (or if) it would be possible to propose a new parameter to added to the template? Or are there other options? MichaelMaggs (talk)

If you want to ping me, it's Trappist the monk not Trappist the Monk.

I suspect that the reason that there isn't a |cited-in= parameter in cs1|2 is because such a construct would mean citing two sources in a template designed to cite a single source. To include the bibliographic details of an original source cited in a second source as described in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, it is necessary to use two cs1|2 templates: one for the original source and one for the citing source. This is why I suggested citing only Cunningham; it is simple, it is straightforward, and it is still correct. We are not then responsible for the accuracy of the original source bibliographic information – which, because we have not seen the original source (else we'd have cited it directly), may or may not be correct.

|via= is a publisher parameter – look at where it is included in the template documentation: Template:Cite_journal#Publisher.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk and MichaelMaggs Using only Cunningham as the source would lose the information of the dates of the original reviews, shortly after initial publication. It is said generally in the text, but I think it is essential with the inline citations. Cunningham's book is dated after the W. W. Norton re-issues of this and later novels in the series. Instead of via, could this phrase "reprinted in" or simply "in" the relevant essay in Cunningham, resolve the problem? I have tried to find the original sources, but not yet succeeded, which would be the best solution, resolving for certain that it is the Sunday Observer published in London. Aside, I cannot figure out how to make the pinging work, even with a green lower case m for Trappist the monk. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely agree that referencing Cunningham alone, as if he were the ultimate origin of the reviews, is not right. We should try to follow the example I quoted above, in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

{{U|Trappist the {{green|m}}onk}} didn't work because of the {{green|m}} template that I added to emphasize the correct capitalization. You then fixed the {{U}} template but, for pings to work, they require new text and a new signature. Kind of a pain, but it does prevent multiple duplicate pings. When copy/pasting usernames, best to take the name directly from the user's signature (in edit mode).

I still have to ask: how do you know that the citations given in Cunningham are true and correct? Without you see the originals, I don't think that you can know. You do know that Cunningham has claimed them to be true and correct so citing only Cunningham because that is where you got the quotes and their attendant cites is not wrong. You can write the quote:

"Dashing, well-timbered, pickled in the period, and with strong human tensions and cross-currents."—Benedict Nightingale. Observer. 18 January 1970.^[1]

Cunningham, A. E., ed. (1994). Patrick O'Brian: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography. Boston Spa: The British Library. ISBN 0-7123-1070-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This more-or-less duplicates how the quote is cited in Cunningham. The same would apply to The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and the others. If and when the originals can be located, then cite them directly and take Cunningham out of the equation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

<--

Yes that's one way to indicate to the reader both the original source of the quote and its secondary source. Unfortunately it requires the text "Observer. 18 January 1970." to be set out within the main body of the article, so it would only work where that text won't interfere with the flow, for example where the quote appears on its own or as part of a list. A more general approach requiring only an inline reference number is to use the "quote in a secondary source" recommendation in the Additional comments or quotes section of this page. Hence the following, which makes it clear what the editor has actually seen while also stating the originating author and source:

"Dashing, well-timbered, pickled in the period, and with strong human tensions and cross-currents."^[1]

Cunningham, A. E., ed. (1994). Patrick O'Brian: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography. Boston Spa: The British Library. ISBN 0-7123-1070-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You might want to consider {{od}} when outdenting a conversation.

The documentation for {{sfn}} and specifically Template:sfn#Additional comments or quotes does not apply to cs1|2. The cs1|2 documentation defines |postscript= as a parameter that controls terminal punctuation (see Template:Cite news#csdoc_postscript). Additional text as you have written can be placed after the cs1|2 template's closing }} and before the reference's closing </ref> tag.

In the above example, you assert that the title in Observer is "Book review". How is that known? In earlier comments I suggested that simply citing Cunningham puts the burden of sourcing the quotes on Cunningham. By claiming a source's title not supplied by Cunningham, you have taken up that burden of proof. Do you really want that? What if I now say "prove it"?

An alternate to your version might be:

<ref>[[Benedict Nightingale]]. ''Observer''. 18 January 1970; quoted in {{harvnb|Cunningham|1994|p=160}}</ref>

This avoids the problem of the title, misuse of cs1|2 parameters, and keeps the source attribution out of running text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that's the best available option. I started by saying "As far as I can see there isn't any easy template-driven way to cite a reference which, as here, is quoted in another source", and we have ended up having to handle this common situation with a custom free-text <ref></ref> layout. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're right. It is ok to not use templates when templates don't do what needs to be done. The cs1|2 templates are general purpose tools that are capable of doing most of the citation work that needs doing. But, because they are general purpose, they cannot do every thing.

It occurs to me to wonder: who is the essay author in Cunningham? What is the essay title? After all, it isn't necessarily Cunningham who is quoting Nightingale, but rather it's the essay author who is quoting Nightingale. And, answering my own questions from google snippets: Stuart Bennett and "Four Decades of Reviews". So, with that, Cunningham becomes Bennett:

{{cite book |last=Bennett |first=Stuart |editor-first=A. E. |editor-last=Cunningham |chapter=Four Decades of Reviews |title=Patrick O'Brian: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography |publisher=The British Library |publication-place=Boston Spa|year=1994 |isbn=0-7123-1070-3 |ref=harv}}

Bennett, Stuart (1994). "Four Decades of Reviews". In Cunningham, A. E. (ed.). Patrick O'Brian: Critical Appreciations and a Bibliography. Boston Spa: The British Library. ISBN 0-7123-1070-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Trappist the monkVery nice to have the author of the essay. If I could find those newspaper cites directly, believe me I would; I have searched for them often, but not yet found the database, other than that book, which contains them. All that color stuff that confused me was to emphasize lower case m versus upper case M? Trying once again with the ping. Sorry I am so slow to catch on. Well, previewing this note, I see the ping still is in read and says your page does not exist, and I know you have no user page, just a talk page. Over my head, I guess. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ping received.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggsJust now I changed 1789 Battle of the Nile to 1798 Battle of the Nile in O'Brian's sources, and some phrases around that, to make clearer what the abstruse War of the 2nd Coalition phrase means. I know those into those wars understand each coalition, and how nations backed in and out of the coalition with England (the country was in or out of Napoleon's empire, one reason), but in my view, to the average reader of the Wikipedia article, that is abstruse, inside baseball, and more to the point, it takes a while to understand that 20 years of wars between England (or do we say Great Britain, with all those Scottish and Irish in both Navy and Army?) and France, were broken into sections with intricate names based on complex changing alliances. I also proffer the notion that for these novels, precisely who was in or out of the coalitions is not very important, for understanding and appreciating the novel. It is clearly important to know when Spain was at war with England, or not, or when the USA was at war with England or not, which is usually a key part of the plot action, and very obvious. That is why I tried to get rid of links to War of the 2nd coalition and stick to the link to the Napoleonic Wars, which article, in its lead, explains that there was a war of the 2nd coalition, then the peace of Amiens before the formally named Napoleonic Wars began. To me, that break out of the allies in each "war" is far more detailed than naming all the species seen by Maturin in any one voyage or novel. Just a notion. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Makes sense to keep it straightforward. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The plot summary has Aubrey being released from French captivity after watching the Battle of Algeciras from Gibraltar. Is that the true order? Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Alfie Gandon Yes it is correct. First Aubrey sees things from the French ship where he is prisoner of war, then, still a prisoner of war but exchanged, he watches from Gibraltar. After that battle, his court-martial is held, for losing his ship, the Sophie, to the French. The Plot summary does not need the sentences in exactly the order of the text, I believe that is what confuses you. I removed the Clarify tag, as they did watch from Gibraltar, even if that is said before the exchanging in the next sentence. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Everything else is in chronological order, and the current text gives the impression that the French were in possession of Gibraltar. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I may have clarified it sufficiently. Others may disagree. Regardless, there is some very nice work going on here, well done all. nerdgoonrant (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That looks good. Thanks.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It does indeed. Alfie Gandon (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

While somebody has evidently put a lot of work into preparing the list of publications, it has to be said that this level of detail will be of little or no interest to the average reader of the article. The length of the section and the fact that it comprises a more-or-less impenetrable wall of text severely unbalances the article as a whole and impacts its readability. If nobody objects I propose to split out the list into a new sub-article, and simply include a summary here. The same approach can be taken for several of the other novels in the series. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs I do not know what a sub-article is, so I cannot comment on how that would work for this or later articles.

The re-issue Geoff Hunt cover belongs here, I think, following the model used in articles on novels by Agatha Christie, whose books were sometimes released first in the UK, other times first in the USA, and sometimes with different titles and different first edition covers. The chronologically first cover is in the infobox, and the other first cover (for that nation) is in Publication history most of the time. If there is some other Wikipedia guidance that makes the many articles on Christie novels a bad example, do let me know. What I thought was to put the list after the text in this article. The section developed with the list first, and then the story part was found in reliable sources, the story of Starling Lawrence and W. W. Norton and a new market of readers. Would it become more "penetrable" with the re-issue cover image and text first, followed by the list? (Is that average reader the same one who would think Gibraltar was changing hands in the early 19th century?) Lists of editions are included in the articles on the Cadfael series, which includes 20 completed novels, beginning with A Morbid Taste for Bones. Some articles have more of a list, others count up the editions in sentences, and some list the foreign language editions. For this series of novels, it seems important to me to mark the effect of the reissues by W. W. Norton, and to include an ISBN to a Norton edition, for the fact of it, and because it explains the variety of reviews of this novel and those following in the series. Impenetrable, that sounds like you really do not like that list! --Prairieplant (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes a list like that with ISBN will need some attention, as the so-called magic ISBN feature will disappear soon. That is, ISBN in upper case followed by a valid number now lights up in blue and links to Book sources page. That will be changed to a template, I believe, needing curly brackets around ISBN and the number; it is proposed to have a bot find the usage such as this impenetrable list. This change does not affect isbn= in cite book format, as I understand it. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs & Prairieplant here is what Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels has to say in its section on Publication history (emphasis mine):

"Relying on research (see below), you should briefly outline the publication history of the novel ONLY if there is interesting information to relate. For example, some novels, such as William Godwin's Caleb Williams, were published with two different endings. Some novels were first published serially and then later published as bound books; this is the case with many of Charles Dickens' novels, for example. Maria Edgeworth altered significant elements of one of the marriage plots of her novel Belinda in response to criticism after the first edition was published. Other novels have been censored or altered by later editors. If there are no particularly interesting details to relate, try to work the basic facts of the novel's first publication into the article at some point. If both sections are short, it may be appropriate to merge Background and Publication history."

I realize that this is advice is commonly ignored and many, many novel articles contain long lists of detailed publications with ISBN numbers. I agree with the MOS that they don't belong here. If one looks at the FA and GA articles from the Novel project you will see that almost none of them (based on a random sampling of the 300+ articles there) contain these laundry lists of publication detail. And as far as verifiable sources, it seems that this entire list is sourced from the website fantasticfiction.com, a privately run, unreviewed source. I would recommend removing the list in its entirety and not worrying about moving it to a sub-article. The information exists on the internet for those who want to find it, IMHO it doesn't belong in an encylopaedia article. nerdgoonrant (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be more than happy with that. The list appears to be poorly-sourced, overly detailed and out of date. We should probably have a short section here setting out the early US and UK publication history, when the books were well-repected but not hugely popular, and the Norton and later UK reissues which generated far more interest. One of the sources I have has a quote from O'Brian explaining that nicely. Will add it when I'm back home again, in a few days. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So the text is not liked any more than the list? Ah well. I hope you agree on the Geoff Hunt cover -- the only one added for those books issued with a non-Geoff Hunt first edition cover. Thanks for the information from style guide. I never saw that, judged from prior articles I read. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should keep or acquire the Hunt cover image for each of the books; see Task List above. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just noting for future reference that the Geoff Hunt covers can be found here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know that is where to find them, but only this first cover has been brought into Wikipedia with a copyright page done to say it is used for identification of the book and small size image. Another editor did that work for this article, and then I moved it out of infobox into Publication history section, so both covers appear only in the article for this novel, of those novels up to The Reverse of the Medal, the last one whose first edition did not have a Geoff Hunt cover. From The Letter of Marque onwards, the first edition cover is the Geoff Hunt cover. So 10 more images and copyright notices need to be brought into Wikipedia for use in the 10 corresponding articles. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll bring them in as we go unless anyone beats me to it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Been meaning to say, MichaelMaggs, you are doing good work looking up information in useful sources, like the essays in Cunningham's book and some of King's books. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have used the {{columns-list}} template to create columns for the Characters and Ships sections, but I see that Publication history uses {{divcol}} / {{EndDivCol}}. Is there any preference as to which should be used? So far as I can see, both produce a similar result, and both work well when the article is viewed on an iPhone. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs this seems to be one of those frustrating situations where two almost identical methods exist with nothing in particular to recommend one over the other. They seem to be able to coexist in peace; probably good to not lose much sleep over it? But if a need for consistency (which I completely understand) demands it, I would say by all means unify them to {{columns-list}}. nerdgoonrant (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, will do that simply for the sake of consistency if nothing else. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the infobox, the artist for the 1st US edition (Lippincott) was 'Harvey'. Can we find a source for that, and some more details (eg a first name)? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This section lists several very minor characters (as do similar sections in other articles in the series). The Manual of Style/Novels#Characters says "If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader." That would seem to imply minor characters shouldn't be mentioned at all. Could the section be restricted to major/significant characters only, and the title changed to Principal characters? That would be my preference. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. In the absence of objections I have gone ahead. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs I did not see this comment until just now. It pained me a bit to see that carefully constructed list of characters disappear, even the new lieutenant who replaces Dillon is gone. In later novels of this series, I began mentioning in which book a character first appeared, relying on the character lists to be accurate. Further, characters have larger or smaller roles when appearing in more than one novel. I have not checked if any character taken off the list here is mentioned as fist appearing in this novel. This book has a lot of characters, as we are introduced to every facet of operating a sailing ship in 1800. The Plot summary could not be long enough to mention more than a few characters by name, so that Manual of Style guidance seems frustrating here. Middlemarch by George Eliot depicts the life of a whole village in one novel, and its list of characters includes some who are not mentioned in the Plot summary. The other point about naming so many characters with so many distinct roles on the ship that seems pertinent to me, is that O'Brian put forward a full universe for the reader, a significant aspect of this novel and the whole series. If the novel were simply a lead up to the Cochrane events retold in fiction, all those characters would not need names and personalities, in my view, just job titles like Chips, quartermaster, bosun and the like. Well I am not saying this very well, my reason for valuing the long list. Yes, there is a list of recurring characters in the series, but it is not as well-written as I expected. I found it easier to make an accurate list in the article for each novel, than to keep that associated article clear, accurate and inclusive of all the novels. The split of main characters and shipmates or minor characters, is that appealing? --Prairieplant (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Prairieplant, we have to bear in mind that we are writing for readers of the encyclopedia, who presumably come to us to learn something about the book. A full character list isn't in the least helpful to readers, and is non-encyclopedic writing (see eg WP:INDISCRIMINATE) even though it might satisfy a collecting instinct among editors who are die-hard O'Brian fans. Until last week the list in this article was so random that it even left out Preserved Killick. Listing characters by their first appearance would be a good thing to do in Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series, though I do agree that that's pretty badly written. Looking at Featured Articles, I can't see any that have long lists of every possible character, though some do have lists of principal characters with a few sentences (no more) about each. That could work here, perhaps, allowing us to say a little about Dillon's personality while relying on the Recurring characters article for longer essays. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I was the one who uploaded the Geoff Hunt cover for M&C into the infobox, which prairieplant subsequently moved to the Publication History section. I have the rest of the images ready to go and can upload them and create their fair-use rationales some evening in the near future. Before doing so I wanted to poll the crowd (all five or six of us) to see if there was any interest in using the Hunt covers in the infoboxes, rather than in the Publication history section. I know there are some strong feelings among infobox users about the use of first edition images, but the following text (emphasis mine) is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Infobox:

Images

The image presented in the table should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition, but occasionally it is not. For example, sometimes authors make drastic revisions to texts and later editions are considered to be the "preferred" edition. The most important factor in choosing an illustration for your infobox is knowledge and reasoning: do you know why you are choosing that image and can you justify it? Remember also, that still copyrighted images can only be uploaded as non-free content, which means that you have to give a rationale for why the cover is being used.

I would argue that the Hunt covers are the most significant covers historically for all of the re-issues, as the new covers heralded their rebirth and subsequent massive popularity. None of the first edition covers are public domain, so there is no argument to be made from that perspective. If we did want to use the Hunt covers in the infobox, we could preserve the first edition covers in the Publication history section. I'll be honest, my main reason for wanting to use them in the infobox is to unify the articles visually.

Other thoughts? nerdgoonrant (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I entirely agree. The Hunt covers are of much greater historic significance, as well as being by a notable artist, being artistically far superior, and having the advantage of unifying the entire series. The Lippincott cover was used for only a fairly short period, and has no better claim to be selected for the infobox than the original 1970 Collins cover. As we have to choose one, my definite preferences is for Hunt. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

First edition in the infobox is my choice. There are no preferred editions for these novels, as these novels did not change in the re-issues. What did change is how people responded to the novels. It was the stories, not the covers that drew the new market. Collins had already commissioned Hunt for the covers in 1988 for the first 12 novels (with The Letter of Marque in 1988 the first to have Geoff Hunt for the first edition cover by Collins) before Starling Lawrence read his first novel by O'Brian (1989) and W. W. Norton got involved (1990 onwards), as described in Treason's Harbour#Publication history. There was a loyal audience who read the books with the non-Geoff Hunt first edition covers and wrote reviews, as Kevin Myers describes in his article after O'Brian died in 2000.^[1] I agree the articles of the first 11 novels need both covers, first edition and re-issue cover, to aid in explaining that there was a huge increase in readership. Visual unity of the articles? I value that for sections included, uniform opening paragraph of the lead, but not the cover art. I am glad you have all the covers ready to be placed in the articles, Nerdgoonrant. Maybe make them a photo gallery in the series article, in addition to their appearance in the article for each novel? --Prairieplant (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Prairieplant, I'm not sure what your argument is in favour of keeping the first edition cover in the infobox? According to the MOS quote above, we should be choosing the most significant cover historically. The reference to "preferred editions" was only given as an example, not a requirement. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Hunt covers are the cause of the increased popularity of the books; they may have helped increase sales, as any good visual advertising will do, but let's assume that for the most part they were just along for the ride. Since their creation however, they have become iconically associated with the series. I don't think I'm denying the sincerity of those who read and loved the book before the Hunt cover reissue by making these observations. The cover of the Lippincott first edition was first; that is its sole claim to historical significance. The Hunt cover, on the other hand, is by a major maritime artist, was commissioned to visually unify the entire series, has been the cover of this book for more than half of its existence, and is iconcially identified with this book by most readers (I don't have research to back that up, just common sense and math). I really do think the case for Hunt is overwhelming. And I'm not sure why the Hunt covers would be appropriate to use in a picture gallery on the series page, but not appropriate in the infoboxes on the individual articles? (The fair-use policy would likely advise against multiple uses of the non-public-domain images anyway). Anyone else care to weigh in? nerdgoonrant (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem a lot of interest in this, but opinions are currently 2-1 in favour of Hunt. Prairieplant, would you accept that on the basis of the arguments above, or how would you suggest we move this forward? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with @Prairieplant: on this one, actually. Though I am in love with the Hunt covers: they have a different historical significance (and since both have to be given adeqeute Fair Use justification, it makes sense for the one that actually has commentary on it, to be in the publication history section: since its the subject of the commentary). Sadads (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Sadads:, thanks for weighing in. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument though. I agree that the Hunt covers do have a different historical significance, and would add that they have a greater historical significance for all the reasons listed above. And according to the MOS for Novels, that should make it the better choice for the infobox. There is currently no commentary on the Hunt cover in the Publication history section, but if it were added I don't see a problem with adding (shown in infobox) to clarify, and showing the first edition cover in the Publication history section still makes sense to me. I have no experience of Fair Use rationales being denied, so if you're saying that using both images in the way I'm proposing would result in one of them being denied, I'll have to take your word on that. The discussion now sits at 2-2. Not a strong vote in favour of deviating from the status quo. Cheers, nerdgoonrant (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nerdgoonrant: Sorry: there should be commentary on the covers in the Publication history: they were fundamental parts of the Norton & Norton republishing effort that made the novels popular again. I have a couple sources on this hanging out at my home (pretty sure there is discussion of them in the Cunningham collection) which link them closely with the visibility of the books in the broader public and the resurgance of popularity. Also, we should take a look at The Geoff Hunt Artbook. The Hunt covers are a very specific historical moment in the publication of the series, that bring on a much different interpretation of their role in public awareness of historical fiction (just like the covers that have pictures from the movie, say something else about the books). Sadads (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sadads and Prairieplant: Sorry, I honestly do hate to sound like a broken record, but could someone please say one thing that supports the argument that the first edition cover by "Harvey" (first name apparently unknown) is of greater historical significance to this novel than the Geoff Hunt cover? It's a fairly binary operation. nerdgoonrant (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nerdgoonrant The guidance on the infobox for a book does not agree with your Manual of Style quote. This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_book, emphasis added by me.

image

Image (prefer 1st edition – where permitted), use bare filename: Example.jpg

I understand that you feel the Geoff Hunt covers improved sales, are significant to the history of the novels, but mainly you like those covers. I cannot say I agree with you about the covers being significant to the importance of the novels, to quote the adage, do not judge a book by its cover. If the writing had not been excellent inside those 1st edition covers, we would not be having this discussion, that is my second reason, after following the rules of the infobox template. There is precedent for showing two covers for one novel, in Wikipedia articles, but I do not know who raises the objections to the small cover images used, beyond my experience. I do think some text is appropriate about Collins asking Geoff Hunt to make new covers for the series, in this article or the series article. There is none now in either. More to your point, I think the first edition cover always belongs in the infobox. Without that first edition, there are no succeeding editions. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: Thanks for your response. I was familiar with that Infobox_book template parameter prefer 1st edition, with no further explanation or rationale, and thought it was the (disappointing) final word on the subject, which is why I was so excited to find a paragraph of reasoned policy in the Manual of Style for Novels, which I thought might supersede a terse template parameter. More the fool I. You have presented a knock-down argument as to why the first cover is always the most historically significant cover, for without it there could truly be no future covers. This same argument proves that in discussions of who is the most historically significant human being of all time (which you might think would be heated) the answer must always be Adam. I will now gracelessly withdraw from these pleasantries, gather my things, and go play in another less parochial patch of the Wiki world. No doubt someone who agrees with your views will be interested in doing the work of uploading and writing fair-use rationales. A bird in the hand is worth an early worm. @MichaelMaggs: good luck, and keep up the good work! nerdgoonrant (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be seen as parochial. Do check on this now and then, Nerdgoonrant. Thanks for getting the cover for this first novel, work appreciated. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to do a bit more research on the Hunt covers, and I've ordered up the following to look at at the British Library next week. Are there any other books I should be looking at? Let me know and I'll add them to the list.

• Hunt, G. (2008). The Marine Art of Geoff Hunt : Master painter of the naval world of Nelson and Patrick O'Brian / Geoff Hunt ; foreword by Julian Stockwin ; introduction by David Cordingly. London: Conway.

• Hunt, G. (2012). The Sea Painter's World : The new marine art of Geoff Hunt, 2003-2010 / Geoff Hunt.

• Friel, I. (2012). [Book review?] The Sea Painter's World: The new marine art of Geoff Hunt, 2003-2010 - By Geoff Hunt. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology., 41(2), 469-470.

• Cross, R. (1998). The Tall Ship in Art / Roy Cross ... [et al.] ; foreword by Alex A. Hurst. London: Blandford.

(Wow. There's a book in the catalogue called Master and Commander: a collection of five erotic spanking stories. I won't order that one :) ) MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging interested editors @Prairieplant:, @Sadads:, @Nerdgoonrant:, @Trappist the monk:. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to an interview with Geoff Hunt done in 1993. http://www.historyaccess.com/geoffhuntintervi.html and you probably already have the link to Don Selzer's remarks on seven of the covers, at http://www.hmssurprise.org/harpercollins-covers-geoff-hunt . The titles you have found look very interesting. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I pulled out the Cunningham the other night, and didn't find anything that immediately and directly describes the impact here. Otherwise what you have pulled there looks good. Sadads (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly such a ship, had it existed, would have been painted "Caçafuego" on its nameplate, with a cedilla under the second C. In modern Spanish orthography it would be spelled Cazafuego, from cazar (to hunt) and fuego (fire). Caçar is recorded in the dictionary as an obsolete early spelling of cazar. Modern Spanish orthography replaced c-cedilla with z. (And in Catalan/Valencian, the word for hunt is caçar - you see signs saying "no caça" all over the countryside.)

Omitting the cedilla makes a terrible difference of both pronunciation and meaning. Caca with no cedilla means poo, and is pronounced ka-ka, whereas caça is pronounced ka-tha.

Mr Maggs has suggested that Mr O'Brian deliberately anglicised it as such. I can't agree "Cacafuego" is any kind of anglicisation. It is quite clearly the old Spanish spelling with the cedilla omitted. Real anglicisations don't do that. Zaragoza (which can plausibly once have been been spelled Zaragoça) comes out as Saragossa, Castilla as Castile, Jerez as Sherry, and (over the border in Portugal) Brangança as Branganza. A deliberate anglicisation would convert ç to z, s or ss, as perhaps Cazafuego, Cassafuego, or even more modified. It wouldn't just leave it as a c without a cedilla.

I think it much more likely that the publisher's typesetter just didn't do cedillas. Unfortunately many English published books just omit - or much more confusingly selectively omit - the proper diacritics of foreign names. Acute accents we do, funny stuff like cedillas, not those.

Here in Wikipedia I think we can realise that it was the publisher's inability to write cedillas, and acknowledge - helpfully to the reader - that the fictional ship was called Caçafuego, hunt-fire, not poo-fire. The fact that O'Brian did devise the name of a fictional ship as Caçafuego in an old spelling, suggests he knew what he was doing and appreciated it has a cedilla. It is most likely the publisher that lost the cedilla.

I notice on the German language wikipedia site the author of that article has translated Cacafuego as Feuerscheißer (fire-shitter). Oh dear. If O'Brian had really meant just that, it would have been Cagafuego. Cacafuego is not just obscene, it is also bad grammar.Ivan Viehoff (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We have to follow what the sources say. In this case, the source is the published book - which does not use a cedilla. It may even have been an O'Brian joke, as the German Wikipedia appears to think. It's the sort of thing he may well have done. You may be right as to the reason, but even if you are we can't 'correct' the source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivan Viehoff, I agree with MichaelMaggs. All publishers can print a c with a cedilla, that is not a big deal. Even iPhones can type them. When the author makes up a ship name, in a book of historical fiction, we cannot revise him after the fact. He lived in France on the border with Spain, so he knew enough about languages to be precise in his fictional names. It does have a humorous sound in English, but what then?

Ultimately the test would be sight of the manuscript, which is in Bloomington, Indiana in a library which is temporarily closed for renovation, in a collection of about 10 million other manuscripts. English publishers do in practical reality make it very hard to get complete and correct diacritics, so that is my first assumption, but I can't know that is what happened. He knew France and Spain and thus I like to think he must have been conscious of this, but I can't really know that. Maybe the cedilla was lost at the point his wife typed it up. If it was a joke, it was a bad joke, but Dickens' Martin Chuzzlewit has similar bad jokes. It's all speculation. I have found several references to it on Spanish language websites, which suggest (short of getting a copy in my hand - it is out of print) that the Spanish language edition, Capitán de mar y guerra, does not restore the cedilla, which I kind of assumed they would automatically put back as they automatically put back the accent on Mahón. So perhaps I have a silly bee in my bonnet about it.Ivan Viehoff (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr, I noticed that you removed columns from the Characters and the list of Ships, with the brief note, for accessibility. Are columns disallowed on Wikipedia now? What is the connection to accessibility, whose accessibility? The layout was done carefully a while back, using the columns. Please explain, I have not read that columns are in any way negative. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: Hi. Please see the documentation at Template:Columns/doc and the guideline section at shortcut MOS:LTAB for that information. If you have questions after, just let me know. --Bsherr (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So, Bsherr, columns are not simply columns but tables with a certain rigidity that does not show up well on mobile phones. We could instead use the table format at MOS:LTAB to layout the information as "presentation" and then it will be more flexible for the mobile phones? I guess the confusion to me is that the columns template is so easy to use requiring little as to specifying where the column break is, while the table layout seems to require putting the list information exactly as it should appear. So there could be columns in this article again, if the LTAB method is used. On regular screens, the long list did not win approval from past editors.

I wonder, are you removing the columns template from every article that uses it? --Prairieplant (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You can still have columns, it just needs to be coded as a style rather than as a table. For example, at Master and Commander#Principal characters, I kept the columns by changing {{columns}} to {{div col}}. You could do that at Master and Commander#Ships, but I would recommend using a uniformly bulleted list (i.e. "British" has a bullet, and then all the ships under it have second-level bullets), or it may render with unsightly breaks in the sections of the list. Generally speaking, yes, I am adapting uses of {{columns}} to accessible alternatives wherever found. --Bsherr (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: I've edited Master and Commander#Ships to add accessible columns as a demonstration. --Bsherr (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr I see the div col in the edit text but when I look at the article, the ship list, like the principal characters section are in one list, not two columns. I am using a laptop computer right now. the article showed both of those sections in two columns before you updated the format to div col, as in this prior version for example. I have not tried looking at the article on a smaller device to see any differences with the much smaller screen of a mobile phone. Thanks for the heads up about your plan to change columns in many articles. The article for this book in this series by Patrick O'Brian had the character list cut down. In articles on later books, the character list is quite long, and left in a long list, no columns. In just 3 articles is the ship list long enough to have been put in columns: Post Captain (novel), The Commodore (novel) and The Yellow Admiral.

The terms are confusing, as "style" is still called a table. I suppose I will get used to that. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize a table was referred to as a style somewhere. More specifically, to be accessible, columns should be rendered as Span and div, not as tables, unless the intent is to actually make a table. On my laptop, which admittedly has a wide screen, Master and Commander#Principal characters appears in three columns, and Master and Commander#Ships appears in two. Part of how {{div col}} improves accessibility is that variability based on screen size, resolution, zoom level, etc., because, for users who utilize the zoom in their browser (or other features) to make text larger, tables, which force multiple columns, make render columns so narrow that the text is difficult to read. To see the columns, you could try, on your viewing end, increasing the resolution of your screen if possible, or zooming out in your browser. On the Wikipedia end, you could also experiment with the "colwidth=" parameter in {{div col}} by setting the column width narrower than the default 30em, for example, {{div col|colwidth=20em|content=...}}. --Bsherr (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bsherr Neither my iPhone 6 plus (oriented vertically or horizontally) nor my lap top shows the lists in columns, for Characters and the Ships, in this article. How is it that the same edit code in this article shows as columns on your device? Aha, the laptop browser was set to 120%, and I just set it to 100% and two columns appear for Characters and for Ships. I change the page % often, and do not always check to see where it is, at 100% or something else. My laptop has a 17" screen, as large as I could find, but it proves to be different from my 3rd computer as to display. I checked my Desk Top computer, same software and browser as the laptop, and it shows the columns for Characters and for Ships, despite being set to the same 120%. Hmmm! I tried to make the type smaller on the iPhone, but nothing changed in the article's layout viewed on that screen; I will play around with that more, just to learn.

However, that means any editor wanting to set up columns must be sure to set the screen on their laptop browser to 100%, no enlarged text, to check if their code worked, or use a Desk Top computer. Thanks for your clearer explanation about Span and div. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)