This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: 19th century Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by 19th century task force.

Prairieplant, this doesn't look right:

"Charles Dickens; Margaret Cardwell (1993), Great Expectations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-818591-8, introduction and notes by Margaret Cardwell"

Surely Cardwell is the editor? See Norton edition for example. I will see if it can be fixed.Rwood128 (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128, my contribution was simply to add her name to distinguish 2 entries that were both Dickens 1993, and confused the short ref- to - long ref connection. I was worried that some inline citations were to the other Dickens 1993, just above it. I changed all inline citations to the edition with Cardwell’s name.

I thought she wrote the introduction for this 1993 edition, and notes on the text, but I never saw this edition. See another post below, it was written in the Editions section of the article. Many refs are to pages with lower case Roman numerals; one of these had words saying it was a ref to Cardwell. I deleted those words when I added her name to the ref. Was that wrong? Is the other 1993 listing needed in this article?

WorldCat describes it this way here.

Oxford, the publisher that uses Clarendon Press, says this, but the most interesting description is limited to subscribers (front matter and end matter) & I am not a subscriber. Publisher page is here.

When I looked online yesterday I found text mentioning her insights, naming her. Today I see there is a 2008 edition, which adds another person as writer of the intro. Have to be specific with the year of publication. - - -Prairieplant (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Prairieplant (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for so many typos above, I am working from my mobile phone right now instead of my computer. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected most of my typos now that I am using my computer. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of her name from the long reference generates errors in the short refs, immediately. I will add her back as editor=, and hope that still works with linking short refs to that long ref while you sort out if she did write the intro and can be author. I will shift to my computer now. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 This is text quoted from the Editions section of the article, and I put the text about Cardwell in bold - "Robert L Patten identifies four American editions in 1861 and sees the proliferation of publications in Europe and across the Atlantic as "extraordinary testimony" to Great Expectations's popularity.[63] Chapman and Hall published the first edition in three volumes in 1861,[2][3][4] five subsequent reprints between 6 July and 30 October, and a one-volume edition in 1862. The "bargain" edition was published in 1862, the Library Edition in 1864, and the Charles Dickens edition in 1868. To this list, Paul Schlicke adds "two meticulous scholarly editions", one Clarendon Press published in 1993 with an introduction by Margaret Cardwell[64] and another with an introduction by Edgar Rosenberg, published by Norton in 1999.[54] The novel was published with one ending (visible in the four online editions listed in the External links at the end of this article). In some 20th century editions, the novel ends as originally published in 1867, and in an afterword, the ending Dickens did not publish, along with a brief story of how a friend persuaded him to a happier ending for Pip, is presented to the reader (for example, 1987 audio edition by Recorded Books[65])"

Meanwhile, I am testing out her name as editor so the reference linkage still works, and learned that the Wordsworth edition was issued in 1992, and that makes only one cited edition in 1993, because I changed the Wordsworth edition to be year=1992. Making Cardwell an editor does NOT solve the reference linkage problem. Either 1) I put all those cites back to Charles Dickens 1993 or 2) we add Cardwell back as second author. I will wait for you to say if Cardwell wrote the intro and is therefore a second author.

I think a person who writes an introduction is a second author. That is the status I gave to others named as writing an introduction to other editions of Great Expectations in the Works cited list. Okay? --Prairieplant (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Prairieplant. As Cardwell is the author only of the introduction and notes it is confusing to list her as the joint author of the whole text. I was interested to see the World Cat page and remember seeing translators similarly listed as authors. In a sense translators are authors, I suppose, (more so with poetry), but it is better to clearly distinguish between authors, editors, and translators. Footnote 6 refers to page 1 of the "Introduction", so in my opinion the citation should just mention Cardwell as the author, within Dickens' novel.

I'm more comfortable with, say, the Chicago style of formatting:

• Thoreau, Henry David. “Walking.” In The Making of the American Essay, edited by John D’Agata, 167–95. Minneapolis: Graywolf Press, 2016.
• Jhumpa Lahiri, In Other Words, trans. Ann Goldstein (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016), 146.

I take the World Cat entries as library shorthand rather than an accurate reflection of reality. Rwood128 (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my library's e-book citation shows Cardwell as co-author, though strictly speaking she is only the editor. To add to the confusion I now find that the "Introduction and Notes" were written by Robert Douglas-Fairhurst. Shouldn't the author of the source for citation no. 6 get credit? And so forth. I prefer full acknowledgement of sources, including differentiating author and editor, etc. but I need to check Wikipedia's guidance on this!

The details for the Penguin Classics edition are surely wrong? Rwood128 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references to the introduction to the Oxford edition wrongly attributed to Cardwell. I will work on this.

I have checked the copyright details from the 2008 online text I accessed. This shows that Robert Douglas-Fairhurst's introduction and notes were added to a new edition in 2008. I haven't been able to check the earlier version, but a review of the 1993 edition indicates that Cardwell provided an introduction. I should have checked more carefully. Rwood128 (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 I am glad that you found the same information I did, as to the difference between the 2008 edition and the 1993 edition. I guess I do not understand why writing the introduction does not make a person an author, a secondary author, but that is your call. I will remove Cardwell's name from the short references, the harvnb versions that appear in the article text, so that the short references will link to the long references when the cursor is placed over the short ref or the short ref is clicked, in the Reference section. That is the mechanics of short and long refs, nothing to do with style. There is just one Dickens 1993 long reference now, so the links will work and your phrase indicating introduction by Margaret Cardwell will inform the reader. As to the style of the long references, they are formatted and now show up as the default style. There are ways to make them look like Chicago style, but I have not learned how to do that as yet, sorry. -- Prairieplant (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fr your patience, Prairieplant, and sorry for creating all this fuss. There are obviously a number of citation styles and clearly Wikipedia has adopted a very liberal approach. I like what you have done. Rwood128 (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit by Joombi are slightly better, subject to correcting for British style. Rwood128 (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regulov Here is a paragraph from The Guardian, a British newspaper using British style, showing how they do not use full stops in the initial of a person's name, bold added by me. "Pasternak's work is also difficult because his mind-set is unpredictably complex, evocatively associative, synaesthetic and polysemous. His vocabulary is exceptionally wide, and his intellect has a pronounced metaphysical cast. In an uncollected letter to TS Eliot, Pasternak explores their shared aesthetic in ambitiously faulty English. Eliot's art, he writes, like his own, is "a casually broken off fragment of the density of being itself; of the hylomorphic matter of existence . . ." Pasternak became much more accessible in his later work. Doctor Zhivago was suicidally vivid and forthright. The poems that accompany it are translucent." from here. Do not put the full stops back. Let your eyes get used to this aspect of British style. -- Prairieplant (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same poet, when discussed in The New York Times, an American newspaper, has full stops after his initials. American style, not British style. "The estate of T.S. Eliot has gifted the struggling museum, which reopened in late August after being closed since March, 20,000 pounds (or approximately $26,000) last week. The donation was first reported by the BBC." from here. -- Prairieplant (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prairieplant and Regulov as far as I can see there is no standard British style in this case. As I noted previously, the London Review of Books uses periods with initials. I randomly checked four books published in England, including two by Oxford U.P. and they all also use a period. And TLS! This is becoming tedious. Rwood128 (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I need to explain this to you? Wikipedia has a style guide which governs how initials in biographical names are formatted. That style guide is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The relevant section is here: MOS:INITS. It does not matter how the Guardian does it, because Wikipedia is not the Guardian. It does not matter how the Times does it, because Wikipedia is not the Times. You are overestimating the latitude national styles of English are given at Wikipedia. By all means, write "Mr Micawber" and "honour". Be my guest. But MOS:INITS is unequivocal. I will be reverting. Until you can come up with something better than "I would win the argument if we were writing at the Guardian", please give it a rest. I understand that you don't like Wikipedia's style. Noted. I will suggest once again that you should get used to it, or else go work to change the MOS. But you don't get to just declare this page exempt from the rules. Regulov (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prairieplant, as there is no British style in this case there's no need to continue this debate. Rwood128 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 When I started editing articles using British style years back, other editors from the UK made sure I learned this rule by changing text to match what they knew, and I saw it in practice in British newspapers and in Wikipedia guidance. If you two want to erase it, without bringing in any other voice, one known to be from the UK, then go ahead. I am not from the UK, which is why I had to be taught the British style. I assume it is like US style — not every publication follows exactly the same rules, so counter examples can always be found. It has been good working on the articles on books by Dickens up to now, a good learning experience with good editors. It is time to step away now that Regulov has taken over, on periods and apostrophes. - - Prairieplant (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prairieplant, I'm no expert and left Britain long ago, but my conclusions about British-style are based on what I found in British books and journals. I just checked a book published by the Liverpool U.P. and they use periods after initials, and "s's". Again, University of Wales Press's author's guidelines has:

apostrophe

Jones’s, Thomas’s, Wales’s, but classical names have no extra ‘s’, e.g. Diogenes’, Ulysses’. This convention may appear incongruous at times – e.g. Krauss’s critique, Glass’s Guide – but should be followed consistently.

abbreviations and contractions

Generally, a full point for abbreviations (Fig., a.m., p.m., ed., vol.), but not for contractions (Mr, Dr, Revd, St (for saint; St. is the accepted contraction for street), Figs, eds, vols). Plural forms of some common abbreviations are effectively contractions, which means no point is required: ed., vol. and ch., which have a full point in the singular, are given as eds, vols and chs without a point in the plural (for use in notes and bibliographies).

To be clear this means periods after initials. Perhaps, Prairieplant, you might look at actual current practice in Britain, and check the examples that I provided previously, or simply examine books that you own that were published in Britain. I haven't yet found any evidence to support what you claim. I am not siding with Regulov, just checking the facts. Rwood128 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Great Expectations, Oxford World Classics edition. Rwood128 (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I could get through to you. This is not about what I want. It doesn't matter what I want. It doesn't matter where an editor comes from. It doesn't matter what British publications do or do not do. It doesn't matter what people used to do at Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter that no one has noticed before now. The overriding consensus is the one that resulted in the relevant sections of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

If you feel strongly that there ought to be an exception to the rules in question on grounds of national style of English, you have the option of raising the issue at Talk:MOS, and you can see what other editors there think about changing the MOS. It is, after all, a guideline, and subject to change. Of course, that effort will fail, because while competent English writers, editors, and publishers do indeed style possessives and initialisms differently, the cleavage does not align neatly with British and American English. Arguing the MOS should permit multiple styles just because multiple styles are found in the world would be even more hopeless: the whole point of a house style policy is to make (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) rulings to which editors can refer when disagreements (like this one) arise, in order to forestall or at least truncate edit wars, and to lend the publication consistency by the way.

But I can't emphasize strongly enough that even if your case were better, it would not matter unless and until you successfully changed the MOS. This is not the right venue for your arguments, Prairieplant. You are making arguments that only have any value in the context of an effort to amend the MOS. But the MOS is, if you'll permit me, essentially the law, and now that I've brought it to your attention, you're bound to make a good faith effort to abide by it. You aren't allowed to revert my edits, now that the situation has been explained to you. Are you allowed to "make a mistake"? If plain orneriness compels you, can you go ahead and add new text sprinkled with "GK Chesterton" and "Dickens' novels"? I suppose that's between you and your conscience. Look, you're right that these are small details; but rather than waxing wroth because Regulov makes small details a point of principle rather than giving up and going away, why not simply accept that the MOS does not perfectly reflect your personal preferences, or your long-held idea of what constitutes "British style"? The details are as small for you as they are for me. Be big. Regulov (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did say bye because Regulov is too much. However I saw this discussion on the Talk page of another article, regarding points, as they called full stops or periods. Consider it in your views of "laws" in Wikipedia, this discussion f a move that did happen, taking the period after Mr in the article title.

The Mysterious Mr. Quin → The Mysterious Mr Quin – -- There is no period in book's title per original cover and UK MOS custom at the time. Quis separabit? 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Informal investigation suggests that the original styling of the title (and of the text) consistently had no point after "Mr", in accord with long-standing British usage. Several sources, even those devoted to this author, add a point. But the author's preference is certainly most important; and WP:ENGVAR would decide the matter anyway, even if there were no evidence of the author's and original publisher's preferences. The article needs revision throughout, to establish uniform British usage. NoeticaTea? 23:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Support This is the title. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support "Mr Quin" it should be. Bielle (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

End of quoted discussion from The Mysterious Mr Quin -- Prairieplant (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the relevance of this. Did you, Prairieplant, not read my comments above about British style? It has already been established that "Mr" is British usage, whereas "Mr." is American-style. Rwood128 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful to sign your comments, Rwood128. Regulov (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope everyone's well. Reread the article today and had some thoughts. Jotting them down while I remember.

• tighten the prose
• verify references support the text that cites them. Definitely a long-term project.
• use any unused references to expand the article (which were translated and copied from the French-language Wikipedia article, possibly the version that was promoted to GA or FA there)
• change the publication schedule table into a plain list
• Combine the § Novels influenced by... and § Adaptations into a § Legacy section?
• Trim and proseify § Adaptations, use proper subsection headings instead of bold (WP:PSEUDOHEAD)
• Update article with more recent literary analysis and criticism. For example, expanding on or responding to postcolonialist readings, feminist analysis, analysis through an economic lens (capitalism and its influences?).

Most of these are overarching, ongoing, long-term tasks. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section about pips sister after the attack;

"Mrs Joe changes and becomes kindhearted after the attack"

Does she? I think she has serious brain damage... 82.17.47.75 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title was borrowed from Philip Sidney's sonnet sequence Astrophil and Stella:

21 Your words, my firend, (right healthful caustics) blame

My young mind marr'd, whom Love doth windlass so,
That mine own writings like bad servants show
My wits, quick in vain thoughts, in virtue lame;
That Plato I read for nought, but if he tame
Such doltish gyres; that to my birth I owe
Nobler desires, lest else that friendly foe,
Great Expectation, were a train of shame.
For since mad March great promise made of me,
If now the May of my years much decline,
What can be hoped my harvest time will be?
Sure you say well, "Your wisdom's golden mine,
Dig deep with learning's spade." Now tell me this,
Hath this world aught so fair as Stella is? Eroica (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have again deleted the images recently added by User:Richardgrayson3451 to David Copperfield and Great Expectations:

• The images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by User:Richardgrayson3451, and the source is shown as own work. To then add them to articles which they have been editing appears to be self-promotion and a conflict of interest.

• User:Richardgrayson3451 was requested on their talk page by User:Rwood128 to identify the source of these images, and has not responded. If the images are not their own work then, without knowing their origin, it must be assumed that they do not have permissions and should not be in WP.

Per WP:COIADVICE, if the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial. Editors should rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. User:Richardgrayson3451, if you wish to restore these images, I suggest you make proposals to do so on the respective articles' talk pages so other editors can consider if these images actually improve the articles. Masato.harada (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Following Images are my own creation from AI and not stolen and belong to me. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richardgrayson3451 I don't doubt that you are trying to improve the Dickens' article, but this isn't really doing that as far as I can see. Rwood128 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masato.harada, I think we need a clear ruling as to whether or not this is self-promotion – though that seems pretty obvious to me. Rwood128 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly do you mean my self promotion? Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a better portrayal of art and depiction of what AI thinks Dickens was showing.

its a second opinion. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the creator, using AI (it needs you). This is a lot of pretentious twaddle! Sorry to use unparliamentarian/unWikipedian language. Rwood128 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in pursuing this further, you can raise this matter at Wikipedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>, under Commons talk:AI-generated media. Rwood128 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]