Talk:The Old Curiosity Shop

	Novels portal 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.

old comment[edit]

The section Plot Introduction seems very subjective. 'It is one of his funniest and most entertaining', 'like all of Dickens's novels, the book is full of wonderful characters' both seem to be little more than opinions (esp. without citation)

These phrases have been removed from the article. Doctormatt 02:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CharlesDickens TheOldCuriosityShop.jpg[edit]

Image:CharlesDickens TheOldCuriosityShop.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Version[edit]

I had an animated verision as a child on VHS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.59.103 (talk • contribs)

Failure of Musical Version[edit]

The statement about 'A musical version... was a flop because the age of the conventional British musical had passed.' is uncited and seems subjective. Gholson (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CharlesDickens TheOldCuriosityShop.jpg[edit]

Image:CharlesDickens TheOldCuriosityShop.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit blitz coming![edit]

In the next week or two I plan on overhauling this article. If anybody has any suggestions, requests, etc., lodge them now. Overall I think this article sort of stinks, so far, and reads more like a too-long sixth-grade book report than an encyclopedic narrative, and I want to try and spiff it up, but I don't want to scare anybody by making (the necessarily dramatic) changes without warning. So you're warned! Love, Sugarbat (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1904 book[edit]

I just recently inherited a copy of the book that was copywrited and published in 1904 with a leatherbound so I added it in. Hopefully, this is okay and if proof needs to be provided, I am willing to take pictures (and add it in, maybe?) Yoryx (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a first edition of which I'm very proud. Nadquilp7 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

There's a malfunction with the text in the 'Plot summary' section. I've no idea how to fix it so I'll just leave this comment here and hope someone sees it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.44.235 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nell as a Mary-Sue[edit]

I hate to say it's understandable about the ridicule the character Nell gets as she just seemed to perfect at times and her death was so predicable as a narrative device.--208.79.246.64 (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Old Curiosity Shop. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Old Curiosity Shop. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707060512/http://www.19thnovels.com/theoldcuriosityshop.php to http://www.19thnovels.com/theoldcuriosityshop.php

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does cover image in infobox say Barnaby Rudge?[edit]

The cover image used in the infobox says, by caption, that it is the publication that carried the instalments of the novel before it was published as a book. I see the name Barnaby Rudge below the title Master Humphrey's Clock. Other print on the image is too small or too out of focus to read, for me at least. It looks like the same image as is used for the infobox for the next novel, Barnaby Rudge and checking the image use, it is exactly the same image. Is there a wrapper showing The Old Curiosity Shop? If not, the title page from the book ought to be in the infobox. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swinburne's comment[edit]

I inserted the words "due to her flawlessness and imperturbability"- paraphrasing the cited Swinburne text, which says she's too perfect, nothing ever bothers her, and so on- before the quotation from him about Nell being "a monster (etc)" so as to indicate WHY Swinburne came to that conclusion, but was reverted by RWood128 (who appears to keep a close eye on this article from the edit history) on the grounds that the clarification was "not an improvement". Surely this presupposes all readers of the article are either a) aware of what Swinburne means by calling Nell "a monster (etc)"; b) likely to check the cited text? Even from reading the article in full, it's not necessarily clear, so I can't quite see why an extremely brief indication of the reason for what he wrote is "not an improvement"; even if it's the choice of words, that's merely stylistic. If the only argument is "it's obvious to any reader of the article what Swinburne meant", I would have to disagree. I'm not a devoted fan of the book or of Dickens so I'm not really invested in the matter aside from as a minor point of interest, but I'm a little confused by the logic applied here. Also- a definite improvement of that section in particular would be the citation of a source for the Wilde comment; if it's "reputed" that he made it, it must appear in a published source somewhere, one would imagine; additionally, the remark re: Nell's "deathbed" is superfluous as Wilde makes no reference to any such thing; the events of Chapter 71 constitute "the death of little Nell" within the context of the book. The lack of description of her "deathbed" is neither here nor there with regard to Wilde's alleged comment.