This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Novel sequence page were merged into Book series on 6 April 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Please see Category talk:Novel sequences#Rename to avoid confusion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have started a separate article for them, Monographs in series, the usual library name., and made a ref. from the good short description here. DGG 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A merge was suggested. The topics are separate--the book series discussed in that articles are volumes one following another on the same subject. Monographs in series are volumes published under a single overall title, but on a variety of separate subject. Book series are found in all sort of popular and academic and technical fields--a great many of them are novels. M in S are essentially always an academic mode of production, that verges onto being a series of separate but large single-topic journal issues. M in S, in particular, are usually handled by Web of Science and Scopus and Chem abstracts etc etc as if they were journals DGG ( talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This section, at the moment, is simply a laundry list|. Any list MUST have some explanation as to what should and should not be listed. Using the word "notable" doesn't count either unless you define what notability is for a book series! For example, what makes the Pee-Wee Harris series (I picked that randomly; I'm not picking on it) a notable series, more so than others not listed? Better yet, what makes the numerous series listed here that don't have a corresponding article stand out above, say, all those Star Trek, Star Wars and Buffy the Vampire Slayer series that each take up entire bookcases at bookstores and libraries? Or His Dark Materials, or the Earth's Children series, or the Sookie Stackhouse/ The Southern Vampire Mysteries...? These are just examples I'm pulling from one page of one category; if I sat down and thought about it, there'd be so many more. Some examples on this list (Sherlock Holmes, Narnia, Harry Potter, Twilight) may seem obvious, but there's no such thing on Wikipedia. You have to prove it. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a directory, guidebook, soapbox or indiscriminate collection of info, there isn't a purpose to this list at all. In fact, barring the fact that this is an embedded list, this list is a perfect example of a list that is too broad and therefore has little value. So, either firm criteria has to be set for this list (even 1 criterion would be something), or it should be removed altogether. Given all of the above, and despite my Inclusionist philosophy, I vote for getting rid of it altogether. I've removed some of the more ridiculous entries already, and may remove it completely in due time if no reasonable objections have been raised. — Skittleys ( talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
_________________________
I heartily agree with Skittleys. So much that I took the bold step of removing the list from the article. I have included the deletion below in the case that someone really wants to work on it. Feel free to take it and make it work. I do believe though that it does not meet Wikipedia standards as is.
-- Lexandalf ( talk) 03:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
{{cleanup-list|date=October 2009}}{{list dispute|date=October 2009}}{{Multiple issues|section=y|examplefarm=October 2009|laundry=October 2009}}
These are listed in the order of their publication debut. (Some of these series started in magazines before books.)
I have seen some books referred to as a part of a "cycle". Is that a synonym for a series or is there a difference? For example: File:DarkForce_Rising.jpg -- Mika1h ( talk) 23:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe those two concepts are independenty notable, and significantly different to warrant separate articles. At best, one could argue that a sequence is, well, sequential and a series doesn't have to be. But it is doubtful this difference is significant enough to warrant separate articles. That said, I do think it's ok to have separate categories as we have now - here's the analysis of the related category tree: the one and only category for novel sequence was Category:Novel series, which states that the main article for its category is here ( book series - further proof this is the same concept, really, as far as articles go). I just corrected that to display category Category:Novel sequences instead. Novel series is a redirect to here. Book sequence article does not exist even as a redirect. Note that it is fine to have separate category for Category:Series of books (not all books are novels), Category:Novel series and Category:Novel sequences, since categories can help to distinguish between series and sequences. But we don't need two articles about series vs sequences. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
kats series is a series of groups, games, and art. Parts of Kats series are: Kats Gc (ver 4.3),The lost group (also known as invatations) Kats star, and Kats pack. To be in Kats Gc, you must have a Kats symbol 161.0.240.179 ( talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Novel sequence page were merged into Book series on 6 April 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Please see Category talk:Novel sequences#Rename to avoid confusion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I have started a separate article for them, Monographs in series, the usual library name., and made a ref. from the good short description here. DGG 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
A merge was suggested. The topics are separate--the book series discussed in that articles are volumes one following another on the same subject. Monographs in series are volumes published under a single overall title, but on a variety of separate subject. Book series are found in all sort of popular and academic and technical fields--a great many of them are novels. M in S are essentially always an academic mode of production, that verges onto being a series of separate but large single-topic journal issues. M in S, in particular, are usually handled by Web of Science and Scopus and Chem abstracts etc etc as if they were journals DGG ( talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This section, at the moment, is simply a laundry list|. Any list MUST have some explanation as to what should and should not be listed. Using the word "notable" doesn't count either unless you define what notability is for a book series! For example, what makes the Pee-Wee Harris series (I picked that randomly; I'm not picking on it) a notable series, more so than others not listed? Better yet, what makes the numerous series listed here that don't have a corresponding article stand out above, say, all those Star Trek, Star Wars and Buffy the Vampire Slayer series that each take up entire bookcases at bookstores and libraries? Or His Dark Materials, or the Earth's Children series, or the Sookie Stackhouse/ The Southern Vampire Mysteries...? These are just examples I'm pulling from one page of one category; if I sat down and thought about it, there'd be so many more. Some examples on this list (Sherlock Holmes, Narnia, Harry Potter, Twilight) may seem obvious, but there's no such thing on Wikipedia. You have to prove it. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a directory, guidebook, soapbox or indiscriminate collection of info, there isn't a purpose to this list at all. In fact, barring the fact that this is an embedded list, this list is a perfect example of a list that is too broad and therefore has little value. So, either firm criteria has to be set for this list (even 1 criterion would be something), or it should be removed altogether. Given all of the above, and despite my Inclusionist philosophy, I vote for getting rid of it altogether. I've removed some of the more ridiculous entries already, and may remove it completely in due time if no reasonable objections have been raised. — Skittleys ( talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
_________________________
I heartily agree with Skittleys. So much that I took the bold step of removing the list from the article. I have included the deletion below in the case that someone really wants to work on it. Feel free to take it and make it work. I do believe though that it does not meet Wikipedia standards as is.
-- Lexandalf ( talk) 03:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
{{cleanup-list|date=October 2009}}{{list dispute|date=October 2009}}{{Multiple issues|section=y|examplefarm=October 2009|laundry=October 2009}}
These are listed in the order of their publication debut. (Some of these series started in magazines before books.)
I have seen some books referred to as a part of a "cycle". Is that a synonym for a series or is there a difference? For example: File:DarkForce_Rising.jpg -- Mika1h ( talk) 23:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe those two concepts are independenty notable, and significantly different to warrant separate articles. At best, one could argue that a sequence is, well, sequential and a series doesn't have to be. But it is doubtful this difference is significant enough to warrant separate articles. That said, I do think it's ok to have separate categories as we have now - here's the analysis of the related category tree: the one and only category for novel sequence was Category:Novel series, which states that the main article for its category is here ( book series - further proof this is the same concept, really, as far as articles go). I just corrected that to display category Category:Novel sequences instead. Novel series is a redirect to here. Book sequence article does not exist even as a redirect. Note that it is fine to have separate category for Category:Series of books (not all books are novels), Category:Novel series and Category:Novel sequences, since categories can help to distinguish between series and sequences. But we don't need two articles about series vs sequences. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
kats series is a series of groups, games, and art. Parts of Kats series are: Kats Gc (ver 4.3),The lost group (also known as invatations) Kats star, and Kats pack. To be in Kats Gc, you must have a Kats symbol 161.0.240.179 ( talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)