![]() | 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | On 16 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was procedural close. |
![]() | On 1 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Nonfiction to Non-fiction. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I know I'm quibbling here, but don't you think that Nonfiction has made it's way into common language now, even though non-fiction was grammatically correct back then? I propose a move. -- Anarkial 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I would agree about using "nonfiction" with a re-direct from "non-fiction"; the copyeditor's bible, the MW 11th edition dictionary, prefers "nonfiction." Nonanon 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Came here for this reason alone. I agree. ImpIn | { talk - contribs} 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to the discussion above (now 9+ years old), one finds this article in its current form has 26 instances of "nonfiction" compared to 8 instances of the hyphenated form (not counting the title itself, nor the Category name). Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster both treat the hyphenated form as the "alternative spelling" and the Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming. A bold move is in order. — HipLibrarianship talk 06:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I thought the Chicken Soup for the Soul image was fine for this article... Instead of just removing it, you should've replaced it with a "better suited" one. These pages and images show on Facebook profiles too, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.24.219 ( talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am the author of The Puzzle as a Literary Genre (niquette.com/books/sophmag/puz-lit.htm), which has received many thousands of visitors over the past three years. No surprise. A simple Internet search on "puzzle" turns up hundreds of millions of 'hits'. Nevertheless, the Talk Page for the Puzzle entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Puzzle) has shown no interest so far in this proposed new literary genre.
Permit me to call attention to a distinguished feature as described in the 2010 essay as follows: "Puzzles can be fiction but their solutions must be nonfiction!" It seems to me that an External Link would be appropriate in this article or some other. Of course, I shall be pleased to support research on this subject by literary experts. Paul Niquette ( talk) 09:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The article begins by saying that non-fiction is a subdivision of prose, whose article defines the latter as having sentences and paragraphs. But then the present article goes on to include as non-fiction examples such things as cave art, blueprints, photographs, and diagrams. I think that if these non-prose examples are to be retained, the opening sentence should be broadened so as not to preclude these. 208.50.124.65 ( talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.
Posting message here too for neutrality sake
Thanks and greetings
Bookku ( talk) 07:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I have just put the last but one sentence in the lead into hidden text, as it does not make sense to me: "(for example,. Most literature is a form of nonfiction, providing information and analysis about works of fiction." - Of course, if somebody wants to improve its meaning, they are perfectly welcome to put it back in an intelligible way. Munfarid1 ( talk) 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
What should the title of this article be? "Nonfiction" or "Non-fiction"? Οἶδα ( talk) 07:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Because of how convoluted and untraditional this type of "move" is, I resigned even approaching the subject at the time. Οἶδα ( talk) 20:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Oppose speedy as not uncontroversial. Even though the article move was back in 2019, it was done boldly without discussion. As there was consensus for the current name at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_3#Category:Nonfiction, a full discussion would be needed.
The result of the move request was: Procedural close – not moved as this is a misuse of the Requested move process and, in addition to that, it is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.
This Requested move discussion concerns a request not to move when the Requested move process exists to facilitate proposing moves, and it is therefore a misapplication of said process. This idea to use RM to provide formal confirmation to the present name is counter to policy; it was initiated based on a concern that there is no consensus behind the present name which resulted from a bold move in 2019. Our policy is as follows:Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles, so if you see an improvement you can make, make it.This is further developed in WP:BOLD. Bold moves, like bold edits, are permissible in general. The issue of whether to use the more standard (without a hyphen) or the less standard spelling (with the hyphen) is a minor and noncontroversial and completely self evident naming issue (we don't need a discussion for what the preferred spelling is, we all have access to a dictionary); for a reason such as that, articles are routinely moved without discussing. Permitting and recommending bold actions means that they are considered contributive to the collaborative encyclopedia-building effort which is based on consensus.
Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly( WP:EDITCON), through uncontested bold actions. If bold actions did not contribute to forming a consensus it would mean that they are ineffectual in said collaborative effort and are discouraged. But they are encouraged, and they are effectual, and are consensus-creating, implicitly as explained. With the above in mind, there is consensus for the present title, evidenced in the fact that for years no one suggested moving the article back to the hyphenated name – or reverted the move without discussing. For this reason it is deeply against the Wikipedia philosophy to consider the 2019 move to the non-hyphenated title as non-viable regarding consensus formation, and to seek a purely "ceremonial" confirmation so as to arrive to a consensus, when one clearly exists. It is formalistically bureaucratic when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It also risks a "no consensus" outcome which would create an false "formal truth" that there is not a consensus, but a "no consensus" formal outcome can happen just because there wasn't enough participation or people were confused about the process, and this discussion is very confusing. Undermining in this way a normal bold action is not consistent with policy. If someone wants the name to be changed, they can start a Requested move discussion with a proposal to move to a certain name, or an open-ended discussion with a proposal to move to some not-yet-determined name after consulting various options during the debate, but a "Requested move not to move" is not a possibility. This close can be challenged at Wikipedia:Move review. I waive the requirement that the matter be discussed with me first. ( non-admin closure)— Alalch E. 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Alalch E. 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Nonfiction → ? – Firstly, this is not a traditional move request. I am hoping to reach a consensus to oppose moving this page from its current title. In the interest of overdue category renamings, a consensus is first needed on this article's title.
The page was boldly moved from "Non-fiction" in 2019 by User HipLibrarianship. Among the reasons cited above were that "Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster both treat the hyphenated form as the "alternative spelling" and the Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Οἶδα ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. I'm convinced that this is an ENGVAR issue, and per policy, we go with the first variant of English used, which is British English. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 09:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Nonfiction → Non-fiction – Restore after a contentious WP:BOLD move by Hiplibrarianship without discussion. This was contrary to previous Requested Moves:
* The correct formatted Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another.
When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety, which was the British title. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC) (updated from lean support to support on 04:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC))
When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.
![]() | 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | On 16 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was procedural close. |
![]() | On 1 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Nonfiction to Non-fiction. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I know I'm quibbling here, but don't you think that Nonfiction has made it's way into common language now, even though non-fiction was grammatically correct back then? I propose a move. -- Anarkial 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I would agree about using "nonfiction" with a re-direct from "non-fiction"; the copyeditor's bible, the MW 11th edition dictionary, prefers "nonfiction." Nonanon 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Came here for this reason alone. I agree. ImpIn | { talk - contribs} 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to the discussion above (now 9+ years old), one finds this article in its current form has 26 instances of "nonfiction" compared to 8 instances of the hyphenated form (not counting the title itself, nor the Category name). Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster both treat the hyphenated form as the "alternative spelling" and the Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming. A bold move is in order. — HipLibrarianship talk 06:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I thought the Chicken Soup for the Soul image was fine for this article... Instead of just removing it, you should've replaced it with a "better suited" one. These pages and images show on Facebook profiles too, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.24.219 ( talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am the author of The Puzzle as a Literary Genre (niquette.com/books/sophmag/puz-lit.htm), which has received many thousands of visitors over the past three years. No surprise. A simple Internet search on "puzzle" turns up hundreds of millions of 'hits'. Nevertheless, the Talk Page for the Puzzle entry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Puzzle) has shown no interest so far in this proposed new literary genre.
Permit me to call attention to a distinguished feature as described in the 2010 essay as follows: "Puzzles can be fiction but their solutions must be nonfiction!" It seems to me that an External Link would be appropriate in this article or some other. Of course, I shall be pleased to support research on this subject by literary experts. Paul Niquette ( talk) 09:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The article begins by saying that non-fiction is a subdivision of prose, whose article defines the latter as having sentences and paragraphs. But then the present article goes on to include as non-fiction examples such things as cave art, blueprints, photographs, and diagrams. I think that if these non-prose examples are to be retained, the opening sentence should be broadened so as not to preclude these. 208.50.124.65 ( talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.
Posting message here too for neutrality sake
Thanks and greetings
Bookku ( talk) 07:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I have just put the last but one sentence in the lead into hidden text, as it does not make sense to me: "(for example,. Most literature is a form of nonfiction, providing information and analysis about works of fiction." - Of course, if somebody wants to improve its meaning, they are perfectly welcome to put it back in an intelligible way. Munfarid1 ( talk) 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
What should the title of this article be? "Nonfiction" or "Non-fiction"? Οἶδα ( talk) 07:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Because of how convoluted and untraditional this type of "move" is, I resigned even approaching the subject at the time. Οἶδα ( talk) 20:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Oppose speedy as not uncontroversial. Even though the article move was back in 2019, it was done boldly without discussion. As there was consensus for the current name at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_3#Category:Nonfiction, a full discussion would be needed.
The result of the move request was: Procedural close – not moved as this is a misuse of the Requested move process and, in addition to that, it is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.
This Requested move discussion concerns a request not to move when the Requested move process exists to facilitate proposing moves, and it is therefore a misapplication of said process. This idea to use RM to provide formal confirmation to the present name is counter to policy; it was initiated based on a concern that there is no consensus behind the present name which resulted from a bold move in 2019. Our policy is as follows:Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles, so if you see an improvement you can make, make it.This is further developed in WP:BOLD. Bold moves, like bold edits, are permissible in general. The issue of whether to use the more standard (without a hyphen) or the less standard spelling (with the hyphen) is a minor and noncontroversial and completely self evident naming issue (we don't need a discussion for what the preferred spelling is, we all have access to a dictionary); for a reason such as that, articles are routinely moved without discussing. Permitting and recommending bold actions means that they are considered contributive to the collaborative encyclopedia-building effort which is based on consensus.
Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly( WP:EDITCON), through uncontested bold actions. If bold actions did not contribute to forming a consensus it would mean that they are ineffectual in said collaborative effort and are discouraged. But they are encouraged, and they are effectual, and are consensus-creating, implicitly as explained. With the above in mind, there is consensus for the present title, evidenced in the fact that for years no one suggested moving the article back to the hyphenated name – or reverted the move without discussing. For this reason it is deeply against the Wikipedia philosophy to consider the 2019 move to the non-hyphenated title as non-viable regarding consensus formation, and to seek a purely "ceremonial" confirmation so as to arrive to a consensus, when one clearly exists. It is formalistically bureaucratic when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It also risks a "no consensus" outcome which would create an false "formal truth" that there is not a consensus, but a "no consensus" formal outcome can happen just because there wasn't enough participation or people were confused about the process, and this discussion is very confusing. Undermining in this way a normal bold action is not consistent with policy. If someone wants the name to be changed, they can start a Requested move discussion with a proposal to move to a certain name, or an open-ended discussion with a proposal to move to some not-yet-determined name after consulting various options during the debate, but a "Requested move not to move" is not a possibility. This close can be challenged at Wikipedia:Move review. I waive the requirement that the matter be discussed with me first. ( non-admin closure)— Alalch E. 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Alalch E. 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Nonfiction → ? – Firstly, this is not a traditional move request. I am hoping to reach a consensus to oppose moving this page from its current title. In the interest of overdue category renamings, a consensus is first needed on this article's title.
The page was boldly moved from "Non-fiction" in 2019 by User HipLibrarianship. Among the reasons cited above were that "Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster both treat the hyphenated form as the "alternative spelling" and the Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Οἶδα ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. I'm convinced that this is an ENGVAR issue, and per policy, we go with the first variant of English used, which is British English. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre ( talk) 09:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Nonfiction → Non-fiction – Restore after a contentious WP:BOLD move by Hiplibrarianship without discussion. This was contrary to previous Requested Moves:
* The correct formatted Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another.
When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety, which was the British title. Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC) (updated from lean support to support on 04:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC))
When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.