This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Virginia Woolf is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
The link to the BBC website and a video of Woolf is effectively dead for many of us since it requires Flash. This should be removed or a warning placed on the page caption.
It is necessary to add the word "antisemite" in the section "Attitudes toward Judaism, Christianity and fascism". The examples are already there, but someone shies away from the crucial word which describes her attitude (my guess is that has been censored/forbidden by Woolf's feminist fanboys/fangirls)
Why is omission to VW surviving incest sexual assault?
And why are women referred to as "females" (the scientific term). Human females are women. Thanks to those of you who have been cleaning up the sexist language here.El Cubedo (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a huge amount of effort has gone into the bibliography and selected publications, but I think in their current state they detract from the article as a whole.
Bibliography: it contains over 400 entries, over 100 of which aren't cited in the article body. It's split into sections down to three sublevels at one point, and even has its own notes and references. Its size and complex structure makes it very awkward to read, maintain and update. We could move the uncited works into a Further Reading section, but listing over 100 of these seems somewhat excessive. I propose deleting the uncited works outright, except perhaps for any particularly significant biographies or analyses that aren't cited for whatever reason. My preference would also be to remove the subheadings, or at least to limit them to Books, Articles and Other.
Selected publications: we already have Virginia Woolf bibliography, which doesn't list specific editions or link out to texts but is much easier to read (probably as a consequence of it being simpler). There are refs to some of these works but many of them seem to be inserted when the works are mentioned in passing, which is unnecessary. I propose moving any of the works that are cited due to their contents down into the Bibliography, and replacing this section with "Works" and keeping only the Template:Main that points to Virginia Woolf bibliography.
I think I agree. The article is still far too long, despite a redlink user taking out 25K bytes in January (has this been checked over?). One could try shifting the whole lot to List of works about Virginia Woolf - as you say, a lot of work has been put in - then returning those used, plus say 10-15 as "further reading". I really don't like mixing used and used sources together, & personally I don't think WP is in the business of providing bibliographies. None of the main authors have edited the article in the last 5 years, I see. Conceivably the content in Virginia Woolf bibliography, much easier to follow, and here could just be swopped? Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at those big changes from January at the time and they seemed fine, just a lot of condensing (but I agree there is certainly a lot more to be done). I feel that shifting the uncited works to a new list page as you describe would imply that we can justify their continued existence and curation, but in reality it would kind of be a dumping ground "just in case" it's useful, which seems wrong, and again I agree with you that such bibliographies aren't really what WP is about.
Copying the bibliography page over to here still seems like unnecessary duplication to me, and it is very long. We could list "notable works" only: I didn't suggest that to avoid getting sidetracked into defining them. Also, the article does already have a "Work" section which details most of her novels and touches on her other works, making "Selected publications" more redundant. Ligaturama (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any objections I've begun work on the above: the bibliography had even more unused works than I thought as many of them referenced other works in the bibliography. Will continue working on this here and there. Ligaturama (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not listed in the source under "notable works". That source was the most appropriate one I found that explicitly states which of her works are considered notable. I wrote it that way specifically to avoid a sprawling bibliography or discussions about which of her works are and are not notable.
I do acknowledge that it's a bit weird that it only excludes one of her novels; if it bothers you then feel free to change the source or reword the section to indicate that it's a list of all her novels and also some notable other works. Ligaturama (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind "Selected works" allows one to select some of her essays and short stories, and all of her novels. And I'm not sure why we need to be beholden to Britannica here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor making an independent judgement on what works are and aren't worthy of inclusion in a list of selected works seems like WP:OR. I've already suggested that you can change the source if you like. Ligaturama (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I have not in any way suggested that we're "beholden to Britannica". I don't know what your issue is with using it as a source; the author of that article is an academic who's written a biography of Woolf. Ligaturama (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, it is already sourced (twice) in the article: once in the main text and once in a footnote. So I didn't see that as a problem. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (.... and it has its own Wikipedia article)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
