Talk:Women in Love (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Article upgrading needed: You can help. |
WP:IA |
|---|---|
|
Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions To contribute in upgrading this stub article to start class, the following requirements must be met:
Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template will be removed automatically. |
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class. |
[edit] Please change
The film and book are set at the turn of the 20th Century, not the turn of the 19th. Guv2006 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Quite right. You could have changed it, but I'll save you the effort. Cheers. JackofOz 03:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. The English term, "Turn of the century" seems to date from around the decade of the 1920's, when it referred purely to the transition from 19th to 20th. It is thought (see Wikipedia Turn of the century) to be the English equivalent of the French, "Fin de siècle" - meaning, in this context, the end of the 19th century. This would imply that the century to which the phrase refers is the one ending, not starting.
I have made a cursory review of several dictionaries (including Wiktionary) and have failed to find any entry for the "turn of the nth century", giving any definitive pointer to the century to which the phrase refers. Since the Wikipedia article is the best source apparently available, I'm inclined to revert this alteration. No, better still, I'll rewrite it to avoid the controversy.
This is clearly an area of ambiguity in the English language which could do with a clear-cut resolution. Wikipedia is not the place to host this discussion, however. --King Hildebrand 18:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
