Talk:The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (novel)

Novels High‑importance

	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.

Women writers High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Split suggestion[edit]

How about The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (for the novel), The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (play), The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (film), and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (television serial)? Just a thought - Her Pegship 05:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against. How about we start by splitting into sections first? _└^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 14:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against until there is sufficient content to justify separate articles. Slowmover 19:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In support of this motion if the Adaptions section is expanded as requested. Amanda Kline 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In support of this motion if the Adaptions section is expanded as requested. - Ditto! David Urry 20:40, 6 Sepember 2006 (CET)

: Support with the proviso that (as stated below) you may not want to do a seperate page for the play as there may be less info about it than the TV version. If some wikipedian has access to info then please disregard this statement.

Split, take two[edit]

The article has yet to be split and as of now there are two separate plot summaries. Because there does not seem to be enough information as now now to facilitate separate articles for the TV series as well as the play, I suggest the article be split into novel (which may include a section on its subsequent adaptations) and the film, since both are noteworthy and award winners. I'd be prepared to do just that and work on fleshing out the material on both articles. Suggestions, ideas, etc? María (habla conmigo) 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my posting of support above I would like to point out that you shouldn't be afraid to do a seperate page for the TV show. Although it has never come out on DVD it was memorable (Geraldine McEwan and a young Lynsey Baxter were particular standouts) I was lucky enough to see it twice in the late 70's or early 80's and could help with that page once you get it started. Please note that if you do create a page for it that it should be designated as a serial and not a series. The wikiproject for UK TV makes this distinction as a series is considered to be a programme that extends over a number of years like Doctor Who or As Time Goes By (TV series) while a serial (no matter how many episodes) was produced all in one go and is transmitted once (well once in the years before UK Gold anyway) such as Lillie or Disraeli (TV serial). MarnetteD | Talk 17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My hesitancy in creating a separate article for the series is a matter of lack of information on it, which is demonstrated in the "Adaptations" section. With prior experience in splitting articles, I've learned that it does not pay off to create several stubs from one article; there should be a sufficient amount of information on each split that is done. I still suggest that for the time being there be an article for the novel and for the film, and further adaptations should (for the time being) be listed under an Adaptations section on the novel's article, since that is the original work. María (habla conmigo) 18:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if you don't want to do the TV version, but I would add a brief mention of the play and TV versions on the new page for the film. MarnetteD | Talk 19:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to split it in 2 then the logical split would be novel and play/film, since the film is an adaptation of the play rather than taken directly from the novel, and the play has more in common with the film than the novel. PatGallacher 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the article is long enough to really need splitting. Although, come to think of it, the best split would be novel and adaptations, I am not familiar with the TV series, but as it was written by Jay Presson Allen who also wrote the play and film it was probably closer to them than the novel. PatGallacher 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean novel on one page and all 3 adaptations on another? No matter what route is chosen be aware that there will be a need to go to the pages for the actors and directors involved and change any links to this page. As a wikignome this is right up my alley and I will be glad to help when the time comes. One more thing, I would say that you shouldn't be afraid to have seperate pages for the play and the TV serial as

Wikipedia is repleate (okay the word sounds cool but did I spell it right?) with 1000's of stub pages for both entertainment forms.
It gives a reader the option to go to the details of whichever version they want to read about without having to wade through info about the others.
It allows for future editors to add to the specific version (as I say I can add at least a couple of items to the TV version) and prevents them having a single page to be split in the future (should it ever get large enough).
It allows for any categories involved to be more germain (sp?) to that page. On the British film list project that I am assisting on we had a page for a silent fersion of Therese Raquin that mentioned several film versions in passing with accompanying categories but the article was really only about the 1928 French version. So, as an example, if you were scrolling through the category entitled "British film" and clicked on the TR link you went to a page that mentioned that the british version had been made and that was all that you could find out, no actors director or anything.

Now I am not in any way insisting on this, I am only throwing this out as food for thought. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Original movie poster for the film The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.jpg[edit]

Image:Original movie poster for the film The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.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 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 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) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing quality[edit]

The article had and has a basic flaw: lots of duplication of information between the Plot summary and the remainder. I have not tackled this in my heavy copy editing of the plot summary.

The plot summary was written by someone or some people for whom English is a 2nd language. (There were grammar mistakes -- including inappropriate choosing between simple past tense and simple present tense -- and lack of mastery of use of commas, but the chief language insufficiencies have to do with sentences which are grammatical in a narraw sense yet awkward and unnatural: e.g., the obvious gaps in the writer's English vocabulary and the failure to appropriately use pronouns more often.) Also, it was written with little intelligence (e.g., no cleverness or elegance in the prose). My guess as to the genesis of this article is that it was either some editor's term paper or that it was created by paraphrasing an existing plot summary. Hurmata (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franco?[edit]

"Spark grew up in heavily Presbyterian Edinburgh, while Franco's supporters were almost unanimously Roman Catholic." <- Is that a mistake, or was Brodie a fan of Franco as well as Mussolini? It's the only mention of Franco on the page - without context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.211.191 (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]