This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on May 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Does anyone have the time to at least seperate the Prose works out into Fiction and Non-Fiction? That we seem a good starting point...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.236.33 ( talk)
I don't think there should be that much information on his books in this article. It should simply be an organized list of his works, and should exclude all the summaries and serial numbers. That's reserved for the actual article of each individual book, and probably the subarticle of Neil's work itself. Meatspinclock 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, since there's been no dispute to that particular argument, and having looked at several other authors' bibliographies, I'm going to remove a great deal of the information about each one - mostly the formal bibliography trash, like the ISBN numbers and such. Like I stated before, the actual information is shown in each work's articles.
If anyone decides they have a problem, they can revert it back to as it was with hard-on-the-eyes paragraphs of needless fluff. Meatspinclock 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Neil Gaiman does some book reviews occasionally for the Washington Post.. sometimes full length, sometimes just a paragraph or two. here are some:
- BillDeanCarter 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved to Neil Gaiman bibliography. -- Aervanath ( talk) 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The article should be moved to Neil Gaiman bibliography for several reasons.
1. A bibliography is defined as a list of works [1]
2. The title is shorter, more concise and places "Neil Gaiman," the primary topic of the article, at the beginning of the title instead of the end
3. The proposal on the WikiProjects Books talk page found here had no opposition.
4. The article being in the category Category:Bibliographies by author and not "Lists of works by author" shows bibliography to be the preferred term.
5. The article begins "This is a bibliography of works by Neil Gaiman."
6. The article was found on Neil Gaiman bibliography prior to being moved for the following reason: moved Neil Gaiman bibliography to List of works byNeil Gaiman: accuracy; some are not books, thus not a "bibliography" As stated above a bibliography is a list of works, not only books, so this argument is faulty. -- Marcus Brute ( talk) 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional point: The section of the Neil Gaiman article for his works (including recording, films, etc.) is titled bibliography, further showing the title to be accurate.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I plan to put the contents of this article in tables. I also plan to remove all the sub-categories only keeping Comics(I'll keep them divided by publisher), Film and Television (and deleting The Arthur and Simpsons, this is a bibliography, not a filmography) which will merge TV and Films since there isn't really enough to warrant keeping them separate. Audio-Dramas will replace the less specific Audio, audiobooks read by Gaiman can be moved to the notes section on the main bibliography, which will cover all novels, non-fiction, short story collections, and picture books, there will be a section in the table to denote type (look at Stephen King's bibliography to see what I'm saying), this will be the fist table on the page. I will start writing it now, and will update assuming nobody objects as soon as possible. 24.233.113.155 ( talk) 21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Silver Dream should not be listed under Neil Gaiman's fiction, although he developed the plot with Michael Reaves the book was entirely written by Michael and Mallory Reaves as Gaiman says here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npdHx4cnWJM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.15.160 ( talk) 02:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently, in my local library, I found a copy of "Unnatural Creatures: Stories Selected by Neil Gaiman". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16248246-unnatural-creatures
It is an anthology of 16 short stories from 1942 to 2011, from diferent genres, but all of them, as the tittle of the anthology suggest, with some unnatural creatures. It also include "Sunbird" by Gaiman and published in "Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders" in 2006.
I don't know in what section of the bibliography should this anthology go.
-- 90.163.91.242 ( talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Neil Gaiman bibliography. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm just wondering why Neil's book "Norse Mythology" has neither a page, nor any mention on either his main page or this one? User:Chris VanVlair —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 03:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The difference between titles in italics vs. quotation marks is widely-enough known, but it's unclear what bold-face vs. lack thereof is supposed to indicate. The latter should probably be explained somewhere above the list. ― cobaltcigs 18:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Many books are missing ISBNs, which allow the reader to easily find librairies & other sources of each book. — Lentower ( talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest all book entries be converted to use {{cite book}} including publisher & ISBNs. This template is increasingly being used across the English Wikipedia & helps the reader with a standardized formatting. — Lentower ( talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Brewnou recently reverted a change of mine and added back a lot of boldface to this article, arguing that, "Bold type is used for easy visual differentiation between works by Gaiman and works created by others based on his ideas."
This isn't true, though. The bold text has a meaning to only a small number of readers. It isn't explained anywhere in the article, and to most readers it looks random. This was commented on two years ago (see a couple of sections up from this), and got no response. It's fixable, obviously, but no one has cared enough to add an explanation.
Even if an explanation is added, though, the bolding is a bad idea. It makes the page look terrible, it goes against MOS:NOBOLD, which says to avoid using boldface for emphasis, and it isn't necessary, since all the information is already there. Dan Bloch ( talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on May 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Does anyone have the time to at least seperate the Prose works out into Fiction and Non-Fiction? That we seem a good starting point...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.236.33 ( talk)
I don't think there should be that much information on his books in this article. It should simply be an organized list of his works, and should exclude all the summaries and serial numbers. That's reserved for the actual article of each individual book, and probably the subarticle of Neil's work itself. Meatspinclock 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, since there's been no dispute to that particular argument, and having looked at several other authors' bibliographies, I'm going to remove a great deal of the information about each one - mostly the formal bibliography trash, like the ISBN numbers and such. Like I stated before, the actual information is shown in each work's articles.
If anyone decides they have a problem, they can revert it back to as it was with hard-on-the-eyes paragraphs of needless fluff. Meatspinclock 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Neil Gaiman does some book reviews occasionally for the Washington Post.. sometimes full length, sometimes just a paragraph or two. here are some:
- BillDeanCarter 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved to Neil Gaiman bibliography. -- Aervanath ( talk) 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The article should be moved to Neil Gaiman bibliography for several reasons.
1. A bibliography is defined as a list of works [1]
2. The title is shorter, more concise and places "Neil Gaiman," the primary topic of the article, at the beginning of the title instead of the end
3. The proposal on the WikiProjects Books talk page found here had no opposition.
4. The article being in the category Category:Bibliographies by author and not "Lists of works by author" shows bibliography to be the preferred term.
5. The article begins "This is a bibliography of works by Neil Gaiman."
6. The article was found on Neil Gaiman bibliography prior to being moved for the following reason: moved Neil Gaiman bibliography to List of works byNeil Gaiman: accuracy; some are not books, thus not a "bibliography" As stated above a bibliography is a list of works, not only books, so this argument is faulty. -- Marcus Brute ( talk) 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional point: The section of the Neil Gaiman article for his works (including recording, films, etc.) is titled bibliography, further showing the title to be accurate.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I plan to put the contents of this article in tables. I also plan to remove all the sub-categories only keeping Comics(I'll keep them divided by publisher), Film and Television (and deleting The Arthur and Simpsons, this is a bibliography, not a filmography) which will merge TV and Films since there isn't really enough to warrant keeping them separate. Audio-Dramas will replace the less specific Audio, audiobooks read by Gaiman can be moved to the notes section on the main bibliography, which will cover all novels, non-fiction, short story collections, and picture books, there will be a section in the table to denote type (look at Stephen King's bibliography to see what I'm saying), this will be the fist table on the page. I will start writing it now, and will update assuming nobody objects as soon as possible. 24.233.113.155 ( talk) 21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Silver Dream should not be listed under Neil Gaiman's fiction, although he developed the plot with Michael Reaves the book was entirely written by Michael and Mallory Reaves as Gaiman says here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npdHx4cnWJM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.15.160 ( talk) 02:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Recently, in my local library, I found a copy of "Unnatural Creatures: Stories Selected by Neil Gaiman". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16248246-unnatural-creatures
It is an anthology of 16 short stories from 1942 to 2011, from diferent genres, but all of them, as the tittle of the anthology suggest, with some unnatural creatures. It also include "Sunbird" by Gaiman and published in "Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders" in 2006.
I don't know in what section of the bibliography should this anthology go.
-- 90.163.91.242 ( talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Neil Gaiman bibliography. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm just wondering why Neil's book "Norse Mythology" has neither a page, nor any mention on either his main page or this one? User:Chris VanVlair —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 03:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The difference between titles in italics vs. quotation marks is widely-enough known, but it's unclear what bold-face vs. lack thereof is supposed to indicate. The latter should probably be explained somewhere above the list. ― cobaltcigs 18:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Many books are missing ISBNs, which allow the reader to easily find librairies & other sources of each book. — Lentower ( talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I suggest all book entries be converted to use {{cite book}} including publisher & ISBNs. This template is increasingly being used across the English Wikipedia & helps the reader with a standardized formatting. — Lentower ( talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Brewnou recently reverted a change of mine and added back a lot of boldface to this article, arguing that, "Bold type is used for easy visual differentiation between works by Gaiman and works created by others based on his ideas."
This isn't true, though. The bold text has a meaning to only a small number of readers. It isn't explained anywhere in the article, and to most readers it looks random. This was commented on two years ago (see a couple of sections up from this), and got no response. It's fixable, obviously, but no one has cared enough to add an explanation.
Even if an explanation is added, though, the bolding is a bad idea. It makes the page look terrible, it goes against MOS:NOBOLD, which says to avoid using boldface for emphasis, and it isn't necessary, since all the information is already there. Dan Bloch ( talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)