This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Brideshead Revisited is short on cites, especially the apparent personal opinions in the section " Motifs and other points of interest" -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you all hadn't noticed, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) listed by Baen Books and affiliate Webscriptions has essentially no chance of returning meaningful information from the {{ DOI}} search template (or DOI website ...e.g. DOI: doi: 10.1125/0008). Contrarily, some older Baen DOI's may work, or once have worked but I haven't found one that does.
So shortly before Christmas, I looked into this when frustrated again by an attempt at verification and invested in a phone call to find out why. The result is that Baen DOI's simply aren't DOI's at all, in the sense of being a registered unique ID number, and if I understand things properly, Baen's is further using "DOI", a registered trademark (a surmise), improperly. The most recent Baen DOI's are in fact, the ten digit ISBN of the printed work, a different registration system.
In any event, on the Ring of Fire series books I'll be editing systematically to avoid the confusion to our readers and substituting the template {{ Baen DOI}} as a prefix where we document their listed (non) DOI. Webscriptions itself, who produce the e-published versions in the multiple formats have pretty much eliminated the DOI term on their webpages, using instead the term "SKU". I further suggest that any cited reference based on their content include that prefix after the {{ Baen DOI}} template, should that page be the information cited (e.g. checking a electronic copyright, but not wanting to by the book—the SKU page is open content and costs nothing! On the other hand, one cannot read content, but catalog!). I see no way to cure the potential confusion and "conflict issue" originating in that Webscriptions and Baen attach different "linking identifiers" (and url's) for what is content generated from the same digital source file. Webscription SKU's are simply catalog numbers, and I suspect but can't prove the same source files are in play when down loading or previewing, albeit through a webpage "Frame". There is a distinct difference in looking through a frame reading on line, say at a book on the Baen Free Library, and one which is downloaded. In the latter case, the e-copy title data is available... in some cases, it isn't when read online.
In that sense, the titlepage information from a SKU# accessed and downloaded page from webscriptions will and should contain the Baen DOI (unless the page is a Baen e-ARC, or "preview sampler", which by definition is a temporary webpage or downloaded version!), but this is surmise, and untested beyond a small sampling. I haven't verified to my own satisfaction versus CDROM versions yet either... (Sorry- my interest was more on making an ordered table and "sense" of actual dates of first publication, regardless of formats.)
Baen CDROM copies like their website seem to carry the same DOI as one can access online via the Baen website, but this state is based on a small sample at the moment, for I've done no systematic cross checking. I have checked enough to know NOT to rely on a Baen DOI as an official registered DOI, and that is the message. DOI's and what Baen calls DOI's are as Apples and oranges.
Consequently, I've written the "handle this explaination" template to be multipurpose, three modes of which can be used as boilerplate, plus the 'main mode' usage as a pre-fix. The prefix mode generates a link to the template text, thus giving the same explaination if the link is followed. The "visualized use" there is in infoboxes.
Two of the three boilerplate modes are seen in these edits:
The parameters '1632', 'indent' and {{{1}}} are tested so that specifying either '1632' or anything as {{{1}}} displays the text as modified by specifying 'indent'. One of the two, the novel article 1633, uses indent and one does not. The indent mode uses a bullet prefix and a smaller font. Both use the '1632' switched logic, which merely adds the last paragraph about the Grantville Gazettes... presuming such a paragraph would be both useless and a total non sequitur in books or series by other Baen authors like honorverse, I wrote the template so it must be asked for. The indented version makes sense as a lead in to document the three versions extant, as in the 1633 article, which uses double indentation to set off the separate releases.
Best regards, and happy New Year! // Fra nkB 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
As some of you may be aware, about 12,000 images were tagged for deletion because of missing or incorrect fair use rationales last week. There is a list of tagged book covers here, if anybody would like to add a few rationales. Please start from the bottom of the list, because other editors have started from the top! There is a template {{ Book rationale}} that can be used. There is a good example of the type of rationale to add here, and there are more guidelines here. An image needs one rationale for each article it is used in. If the book cover is used in a list, gallery, or in the article about the book's author, don't add a rationale because book covers usually can't be used in this way.
Also, if anybody has received tons of warnings about their image uploads on their talk page and needs help working through them, please let me know and I'll help out with adding rationales as best I can. Bláthnaid 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to start up a task force for 19th-century novels. This would cover the works of novelists such as Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, Victor Hugo and a great deal many others. It would also encompass Romanticism, Regency literature, Victorian literature and early Modernism, as well as region-specific literature of the period (e.g., British, American, French, Russian). Any thoughts? Cheers. – Liveste ( talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
... in order to join the WikiProject Novels? I've been invited but have no idea what to do. I am new here and would love to help out if I can. Thanks. Katie1971 ( talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What relationship is there, if any, between the painting of "More Watership Down" by Frederick Morgan and the book "Watership Down" by Richard Adams ?
It is interesting to me that the themes seem to be common, although the artist would have rendered this work many years (roughly fifty, as best I can tell) before the book. It is mere coincidence or is there a connection ? I would appreciate any enlightenment.
Sorry, the above was my posting. Appreciate any responses. -- 66.235.91.49 ( talk) 04:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite the best efforts of those trying to rescue book cover images being targeted by the Deletionists, some are slipping through the cracks. If anyone happened to archive the book cover image for The Interlopers (novel), could they please reinstate it? Thanks. 23skidoo ( talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just was looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Articles-Images in danger of deletion and I see a number of books that have been listed there have now been deleted. I hope folks are paying attention to the page. Currently a release from Grove Press entitled The Delivery Man is up for AFD here, the apparent grounds being that since the book hasn't been published yet (it's due out tomorrow) it therefore is NN. So what does that mean for books such as Devil May Care? 23skidoo ( talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
... of a book by Nicci French titled " The People Who Went Away"? Somebody added this to their list of novels but I have never heard of this book. I have read all Nicci French books and as I indicated on the talk page, I have not found this book mentioned anywhere. Shall I just go ahead and delete this title, as it quite obviously does not exist? Katie1971 ( talk) 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The ongoing debate over The Delivery Man (Novel) has taken a new twist. It survived AFD, but now someone has posted to its talk page suggesting that the article on Joe McGinniss Jr.. the author, be merged with the novel article because, in an editor's POV, the author isn't "independently notable". I'm opposing this idea. I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. If someone feels an author is NN enough not to have a separate article, then delete the article through AFD and make it a redirect to the book article. But turning an article on a novel into a combination novel article and biographical article is, in my view, a very bad idea. 23skidoo ( talk) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this will end up where i intend it as this is my first comment on Wikipedia.
I have now spent most of an evening chasing comments of a much loved book (catch 22) and views from others.
as far as i am aware 50% of folk who read catch 22 dont get it, and the other half... anyway, to me the point of this book I think ends up being beyond our real comprehenision, i can only speak from experience; whenever you get 'bowled' over by something; maybe a political speach, or an inspiring person or whatever; it just happens, if this is beyond what we are capable of coping with then so be it. i have read C22 a couple of times and each time have had to force myself to stop reading it because I am on a bus with tears rolling down my eyes with hysterics. xxx
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nudder1974 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 February 2008
Nausea (novel) is currently in DYK. After more cleanup, I will soon be submitting for GA. Any and all help, suggestions, comments will be greatly appreciated. William P. Coleman ( talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As has just been pointed out to me, there is apparently a deadline of sometime in late March for all "bad" images -- including book covers -- to either have a certain template added or be deleted. Basically, from what I understand, the image tags are no longer considered viable (why still use them, I ask?) and it's no longer considered acceptable to just put a line of prose like "This cover copyright 1929 Harper Collins, scanned to illustrate the article on the book in question", etc. Now each one has to have a template that states the patently obvious over and over again. Anyway, presumably once that deadline arrives there's going to be a mass deletion of images that the bots never got to and that didn't have this digital placebo added. As I've stated before, I've given up trying to rescue my uploaded images as the rationales and formats I used were perfectly fine at the time of uploading and unless Wikipedia pays me for my time I'm not revisiting them everytime someone decides to change the rules. I'm obviously not the only one as several book cover images on my watchlist (that I didn't upload) have been deleted because the original uploader either got flooded with bot messages and never saw the notification or chose to ignore it. The Castle (novel) is the latest casuality. There are a few editors who are willing to take the time to help rescue many of these images, and good on them, but I imagine there are many more that will be missed. I guess the bottom line is if you've uploaded book cover images -- especially prior to this time last year -- and you are concerned that they remain on Wikipedia, you'll need to take time out to jump through the image police's hoops before the end of March otherwise you'll have re-upload them again. 23skidoo ( talk) 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the Westeros article should be nominated for Good Article status. Are there any objections? Almighty Clam 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See debate on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Book_reviews. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Hello to everyone. Much to read and learn here, I'm sure I will enjoy ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.75.124 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose creating a task force for cleaning up articles related to The Clique series by Lisi Harrison. None of the articles are very well written (i.e: POVs, grammer, spelling, page format, wikistandards) and, while I've been trying to clean them up, I'm going to need some help.Intentionally I meant to start this as a WikiProject: The Clique, but I figured that since it's such a narrow topic, I should just form a task force for it and- as you all know- I need atleast 5 editors behind me on this to start it up. Any one who wants to join should contact me on my talkpage. Thanks! Yours truly, Broadway4life155 ( talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The Tom Holt sci-fi novel Here Comes the Sun (novel) has been listed at AFD, apparently on the grounds that since it is a stub, it is therefore a NN subject. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. I urge Wikiproject members to a) state your opinion in support in lit-stubs at the AFD discussion here and, of course, if you have knowledge of this particular book, please expand the article. 23skidoo ( talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to concentrate all literature requests at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature. All links from other pages should now point to that particular page. However, it is still a mess. For example, it is still mainly ordered alphabetically according to the authors' first names. Their are frequesnt mispelingz of authors' names and bok titels, and lots of requests should have been made somewhere else rather than there.
If some of us could go through that list, or parts of it, just once or from time to time, we would help improve making literature requests and could also sort out better what articles are still missing here at Wikipedia. Please have a look at it. Thanks in advance, <K F> 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should define what comes under the heading of literature before we rush out and tag every book related article out there, some books shouldn't be added because they aren't very good in a literary sense, but others out there that have been classified as literature, don't deserve the title that has been given to them, maybe we should ponder this further, my talk page is always open. DangerTM ( talk) 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I for one don't see a need to classify literature as it pertains to this WikiProject. What is important is that we cover fiction, whether it be in short story or novel form. The idea of what constitutes "Literature" has changed vastly over the past one hundred years; On the Origin of Species, for example, is often found in the "Fiction and literature" section of bookstores although it's non-fiction and therefore out of our scope. Poetry is obviously considered "Literature", as well, but there's WikiProject Poetry for that. We should not confuse things by referring to our concentrated works as "Literature", since it's such a broad-sweeping term. We deal with fiction. < / two time English major > María ( habla con migo) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But we are not defining literature as anything written down, as it was said before "...applied to writing which has a claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect." That is literature, oh and I was using the 1982 edition, hard cover, so the definition will have evolved since then, but it was the only definition I could find. LIterature is more than books. DangerTM ( talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright people, the definition we used in university (English undergraduate, which I topped by the way) was Literature is text that is valued by many because, through beauty of form, it represents the culture and values of the context it was written in. Which basically means, so long as it is beautifully represented, and it portrays the culture and values of the time period in which it was written in, it is literature, if it doesn't do that, it isn't. DangerTM ( talk) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is the whole point of this argument, What is Literature? I have read most of Jane Austen's work, I did so in University, all I can say is that it left me cold, I did not enjoy it one little bit, which is more of an assesment of me rather than of the writter, remember, People read in search of a mind more original than our own. She was a very intelligent woman, and she was writting as a result of the times in which she was writting in, the context of her work is; She was on the periphery of the middle class, she wrote about what made sense to her. I implore everyone to read the novels, they will teach about the life she lived, and about the time in which they lived in. Which doesn't mean that I have to like her work. I am saying that I can respect her tallent, her grasp of English language was far greater than mine, I can respect her for the way in which her writting represented the times, but that doesn't mean that I have to enjoy the books that she wrote, I found them dead boring, but that is just one man's opinion. Oh and wrad, I graduated a few years back from English, and I can tell you, I may have not been from the genration that thinks that all of the old works (war and peace, etc) were incredible and the only things that should be taught, but my teachers certainly were. DangerTM ( talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, is anyone on my side at all? It has been a long and open discussion, and I cannot see if anyone agrees with my point of view in the slightest. DangerTM ( talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the goals were not to catalogue notable works of fiction, but rather to catalogue ever work of fiction that is currently on wikipedia. Maybe instead of art we should classify literature to values? Courage to me is set in stone, bravery beyond the call of duty, etc, etc. But maybe what I see as bravery, is not as brave to others. Such as the Soviets in WWII, victory or death, they were either killed by an officer of their own army, or killed by the Germans, yet they still fought on, when I think bravery, I do not think victory or death, I think something different. I guess what I really am trying to say is, that to me something may seem different than to someone else, which makes classification of any kind difficult. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try and pursue a meaning for a subjective word. Bravery relates to the values of the person or people showing it, as does literature. DangerTM ( talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing that an election should be held, where a devoted board of members is elected to govern the project for an entire month, or longer as the situation may dictate. DangerTM ( talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently saw the mention of this discussion in the newsletter, and I think it's a great idea. But I do think that having one person from each task force is a bit much, I mean, we could get things a bit complicated trying to hold about 7 elections, and I don't think it's all that necessary either. My proposal is that we have 3 'council members'. What I do think we should also think is about, is whether or not we'll have something like one president, and a vice and so on, or everyone's an equal member on the council. I think it would be best to have one president, but I thought I'd just put that out there. ~ Bella Swan 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
One can never go to far when the natural constraints of society do not bound us. DangerTM ( talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm seeing two different templates for noting needed infoboxes -- one is Novelinfoboxneeded and one is |need-infobox=yes -- which method is preferred? Thanks! Aristophanes68 ( talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The article David Alexander (author) is currently up for AFD here. Subject is a writer of science fiction and non-fiction, has several books out by major publishers, and appears to have been nominated on the grounds that the article has no scholarly sources as yet. 23skidoo ( talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
MELUS |
This user reads multicultural literature. |
Is anyone else here interested in ethnic lit? I'd love some help boosting the presence of minority authors and books! Aristophanes68 ( talk) 06:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (WMWP: "Well-Meaning White Person")
I response to the above calls for an election I have established the mechanism (in the style of WP:MILHIST's version - thanks for cribbing go to them).
Those interested in standing for four positions as a coordinator should add their names on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008 having checked out the basics on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. Please make this as widely known throughout the project as you can and if you would like to stand please do. Also if you have someone else in mind please contact them and let them add their own name. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know the opinion of the members of this project about the policy WP:NOT#PLOT. The policy seems reasonable but has been used by some editors to delete parts of plots or entire plots, rather than to add context information. There is an ongoing discussion about it. Since WP:NOT is a policy about the kind of information that should not go into Wikipedia, some editors interpret it in a very strict sense. It has been proposed to delete this policy and transfer it in the manual of style as a suggestion on how to improve an article, rather than suppress some content. It would be good if some of you can contribute to that discussion. Eubulide ( talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at WikiProject Novels/Maintenance, I noticed there is no 11th Century Novel category, but I think there should be. The Tale of Genji is considered a novel and was written in the 11th century. Jacqke ( talk) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
How about an Early Novels category, with the criteria of including all novels dating from, say, the 15th century and earlier? That would cover the over-categorization issue (which I personally find a bit contradictory as we've had it drilled into us that we're supposed to categorize articles as specifically as possible). 23skidoo ( talk) 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've come across a temp project set up by a university course that is writing a series of articles on novels. The class is concentrating on Spanish novels. They have, so far, upgraded two articles to GA nom. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Three new articles on three books ( White is for Magic, Silver is for Secrets, and Red is for Rememberance) have been written. They fall into the scope of this Wiki project, so I thought I'd let you know so they can be added.
Thanks.
kka rma 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed a jump in faux categories, such as Novels By 'a particular author' being used as a Category. I am not familiar with your project, is this rampant? It is a complete redundancy and a misuse of the Category concept. If an author's books have articles unto themselves, they will be linked from the original author's article or in the case of a prolific author, from a List of their works article. Creating categories to display a list of these links is a wasted effort. EraserGirl ( talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I will indeed slink away. But it is truly a bad use of the category concept. Books by ONE author is a very very different thing from novels by various authors. Complete redundancy. EraserGirl ( talk)
I've tried to locate guidelines for classifying novels into by year cats, but failed. And sometimes such classification is far from obvious.
Here is an example (and I can provide dozens more such if needed): The World of Null-A. The novel was serialized in 1945, first published in 1948 in book form, and then (to confuse WP editors, no doubt:) the revised version was published in 1970. So, in which Category:~year~ novels it belongs: in all three, two (which?), one (which?), or neither (the last one is a joke:)???
It seems to me the existing tendency is to treat year in Category:~year~ novels as the year of the first publication in the book form and the years of all major revised book publications, ignoring the year(s) of the serialized publication. But I think that's something to be discussed and put clearly into guidelines. Henry Merrivale ( talk) 05:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is the the category refers to year of first publication in book form, period, and not the year of any subsequent revised version (which would be cumbersome). As such, Naked Lunch (for example) is only listed under its original year of book publication, and not under any other years when revised versions have been issued. Similarly, Lost Laysen, a Margaret Mitchell novella written in 1916, is listed as a 1990s book (I forget the exact year) because it never saw publication till then. A more recent example is the Kerouac/Burroughs novel And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks which was written in 1945 but I categorized it under 2008 because it'll be published for the first time this November. It doesn't have to get any more complicated than that. 23skidoo ( talk) 12:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Regular visitors here might like to see Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page. -- Scott Davis Talk 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) - placed on the Collaboration talk page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Election is still open for candidate entry - please do consider signing up. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As part of of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile debate the above statement has been made. If may be documented somewhere - I haven't looked too far - but it just seems absurd to me. Lesser notability than any major works yes, but to say "no notability by association" is surly patently nonsensical. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey all. I recently got an email from a graduate student asking me for an interview about my use of Wikipedia -- the email specifically mentioned the Novels Project, so I wondered if any of you all have received the same request. Is it legit? Thanks, Aristophanes68 ( talk) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I just did the interview myself. It's pretty straightforward. There are actually a couple of different Wikipedia-related studies ongoing from this same school as I was approached by another researcher on a different, but still Wiki-related topic. 23skidoo ( talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I take part, too, please? Katie ( Let's talk!! ) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed blocked user and sockpuppet account DangerTM ( talk · contribs) from Novels Project Coordinators selection process: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI another novel, Different Strokes is up for AFD here. It's the old "it's not War and Peace so it's not notable" argument again. 23skidoo ( talk) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is too frustrating for me to deal with. Some of these are works of Nikolai Gogol, including the story that inspired Night on Bald Mountain. Good god non-notable? -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Aristophanes68 ( talk) 03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)I did add that notability tag. For someone who is unfamiliar with Gogol's works the article does nothing to introduce them to the subject. As per the guidelines for fiction, an article should include assertions of notability, complete with references and secondary sources. A plot summary should be part of the article, but it should not be the whole article. In your post to me you gave a perfect example of the type of information that should be in the article: You write that it "has been thoroughly commented [on] worldwide, and was a staple of French baccalauréat literature exams for several years." That is an assertion of notability that should be in the article. —BradV 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I've gone through the entire list as an extreme inclusionist and either removed the notablilty tag or deleted the article. Feel free to look through the list; or even adopt one or two and bring it up to standard. In general, the articles are either stub-class or suffer from in-universe problems. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment regarding the A3 speedy deletions. They were almost all in-universe 'minor character' articles with no sources. There isn't an obvious code for it. {{ prod}}ing them is process without purpose as these article have had the {{ notability}} tag on them for months. Over all, I deleted about 10%. If you want to restore any, the red links are visible to all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I find notability frustrating because there seems to be this mentality (among the people who devote their energies to enforcing these guidelines) that editors who are familiar with a subject will, by dint of their interest, fill articles with "cruft" about the topic. The editor that tagged the Gogol works above isn't necessarily wrong that they have "notability" issues, but this clearly demonstrates how badly written, even absurd, the notability guidelines are. The problem is also the culture that allows these anti-encyclopedic attitudes to continue to flourish (although, I think it's improving, especially after many of the hardcore "deletionists" turned out to be abusive sockpuppeteers). A good example of the broken culture is the travails of this poor user who created a stub on a major C.S. Lewis work, which was speedily deleted, and rewarded with an indef block. Then, after revealing himself as a professor of medieval literature, and explaining the relevance of the C.S. Lewis work, another admin declined his unblock request and ignored what he had to say about an article. It's frustrating that people who want to build an encyclopedia have to put up with these attitudes. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a new user, I just wanted to wish you guys hello, and any assistance would be greatly appreciated, Thanks. WilliamMThompson ( talk) 10:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently more than 200 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This was already done. See above! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I'm glad to join your conmunity, and wish to assit as far as possible.
The result was merge into WP:NOVELS (as a task force / work group.) -- Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Merger proposal from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Shannara. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The result was Wrong Destination. -- Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Merger proposal from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Several related projects were inactive. I've been bold and made them task forces. Further clean up / maintenance is still needed but more or less the merge is complete. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Was bold and transformed the inactive project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Was bold and transformed the inactive project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Brideshead Revisited is short on cites, especially the apparent personal opinions in the section " Motifs and other points of interest" -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you all hadn't noticed, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) listed by Baen Books and affiliate Webscriptions has essentially no chance of returning meaningful information from the {{ DOI}} search template (or DOI website ...e.g. DOI: doi: 10.1125/0008). Contrarily, some older Baen DOI's may work, or once have worked but I haven't found one that does.
So shortly before Christmas, I looked into this when frustrated again by an attempt at verification and invested in a phone call to find out why. The result is that Baen DOI's simply aren't DOI's at all, in the sense of being a registered unique ID number, and if I understand things properly, Baen's is further using "DOI", a registered trademark (a surmise), improperly. The most recent Baen DOI's are in fact, the ten digit ISBN of the printed work, a different registration system.
In any event, on the Ring of Fire series books I'll be editing systematically to avoid the confusion to our readers and substituting the template {{ Baen DOI}} as a prefix where we document their listed (non) DOI. Webscriptions itself, who produce the e-published versions in the multiple formats have pretty much eliminated the DOI term on their webpages, using instead the term "SKU". I further suggest that any cited reference based on their content include that prefix after the {{ Baen DOI}} template, should that page be the information cited (e.g. checking a electronic copyright, but not wanting to by the book—the SKU page is open content and costs nothing! On the other hand, one cannot read content, but catalog!). I see no way to cure the potential confusion and "conflict issue" originating in that Webscriptions and Baen attach different "linking identifiers" (and url's) for what is content generated from the same digital source file. Webscription SKU's are simply catalog numbers, and I suspect but can't prove the same source files are in play when down loading or previewing, albeit through a webpage "Frame". There is a distinct difference in looking through a frame reading on line, say at a book on the Baen Free Library, and one which is downloaded. In the latter case, the e-copy title data is available... in some cases, it isn't when read online.
In that sense, the titlepage information from a SKU# accessed and downloaded page from webscriptions will and should contain the Baen DOI (unless the page is a Baen e-ARC, or "preview sampler", which by definition is a temporary webpage or downloaded version!), but this is surmise, and untested beyond a small sampling. I haven't verified to my own satisfaction versus CDROM versions yet either... (Sorry- my interest was more on making an ordered table and "sense" of actual dates of first publication, regardless of formats.)
Baen CDROM copies like their website seem to carry the same DOI as one can access online via the Baen website, but this state is based on a small sample at the moment, for I've done no systematic cross checking. I have checked enough to know NOT to rely on a Baen DOI as an official registered DOI, and that is the message. DOI's and what Baen calls DOI's are as Apples and oranges.
Consequently, I've written the "handle this explaination" template to be multipurpose, three modes of which can be used as boilerplate, plus the 'main mode' usage as a pre-fix. The prefix mode generates a link to the template text, thus giving the same explaination if the link is followed. The "visualized use" there is in infoboxes.
Two of the three boilerplate modes are seen in these edits:
The parameters '1632', 'indent' and {{{1}}} are tested so that specifying either '1632' or anything as {{{1}}} displays the text as modified by specifying 'indent'. One of the two, the novel article 1633, uses indent and one does not. The indent mode uses a bullet prefix and a smaller font. Both use the '1632' switched logic, which merely adds the last paragraph about the Grantville Gazettes... presuming such a paragraph would be both useless and a total non sequitur in books or series by other Baen authors like honorverse, I wrote the template so it must be asked for. The indented version makes sense as a lead in to document the three versions extant, as in the 1633 article, which uses double indentation to set off the separate releases.
Best regards, and happy New Year! // Fra nkB 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
As some of you may be aware, about 12,000 images were tagged for deletion because of missing or incorrect fair use rationales last week. There is a list of tagged book covers here, if anybody would like to add a few rationales. Please start from the bottom of the list, because other editors have started from the top! There is a template {{ Book rationale}} that can be used. There is a good example of the type of rationale to add here, and there are more guidelines here. An image needs one rationale for each article it is used in. If the book cover is used in a list, gallery, or in the article about the book's author, don't add a rationale because book covers usually can't be used in this way.
Also, if anybody has received tons of warnings about their image uploads on their talk page and needs help working through them, please let me know and I'll help out with adding rationales as best I can. Bláthnaid 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to start up a task force for 19th-century novels. This would cover the works of novelists such as Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, Victor Hugo and a great deal many others. It would also encompass Romanticism, Regency literature, Victorian literature and early Modernism, as well as region-specific literature of the period (e.g., British, American, French, Russian). Any thoughts? Cheers. – Liveste ( talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
... in order to join the WikiProject Novels? I've been invited but have no idea what to do. I am new here and would love to help out if I can. Thanks. Katie1971 ( talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
What relationship is there, if any, between the painting of "More Watership Down" by Frederick Morgan and the book "Watership Down" by Richard Adams ?
It is interesting to me that the themes seem to be common, although the artist would have rendered this work many years (roughly fifty, as best I can tell) before the book. It is mere coincidence or is there a connection ? I would appreciate any enlightenment.
Sorry, the above was my posting. Appreciate any responses. -- 66.235.91.49 ( talk) 04:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite the best efforts of those trying to rescue book cover images being targeted by the Deletionists, some are slipping through the cracks. If anyone happened to archive the book cover image for The Interlopers (novel), could they please reinstate it? Thanks. 23skidoo ( talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I just was looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Articles-Images in danger of deletion and I see a number of books that have been listed there have now been deleted. I hope folks are paying attention to the page. Currently a release from Grove Press entitled The Delivery Man is up for AFD here, the apparent grounds being that since the book hasn't been published yet (it's due out tomorrow) it therefore is NN. So what does that mean for books such as Devil May Care? 23skidoo ( talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
... of a book by Nicci French titled " The People Who Went Away"? Somebody added this to their list of novels but I have never heard of this book. I have read all Nicci French books and as I indicated on the talk page, I have not found this book mentioned anywhere. Shall I just go ahead and delete this title, as it quite obviously does not exist? Katie1971 ( talk) 12:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The ongoing debate over The Delivery Man (Novel) has taken a new twist. It survived AFD, but now someone has posted to its talk page suggesting that the article on Joe McGinniss Jr.. the author, be merged with the novel article because, in an editor's POV, the author isn't "independently notable". I'm opposing this idea. I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. If someone feels an author is NN enough not to have a separate article, then delete the article through AFD and make it a redirect to the book article. But turning an article on a novel into a combination novel article and biographical article is, in my view, a very bad idea. 23skidoo ( talk) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this will end up where i intend it as this is my first comment on Wikipedia.
I have now spent most of an evening chasing comments of a much loved book (catch 22) and views from others.
as far as i am aware 50% of folk who read catch 22 dont get it, and the other half... anyway, to me the point of this book I think ends up being beyond our real comprehenision, i can only speak from experience; whenever you get 'bowled' over by something; maybe a political speach, or an inspiring person or whatever; it just happens, if this is beyond what we are capable of coping with then so be it. i have read C22 a couple of times and each time have had to force myself to stop reading it because I am on a bus with tears rolling down my eyes with hysterics. xxx
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nudder1974 ( talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 February 2008
Nausea (novel) is currently in DYK. After more cleanup, I will soon be submitting for GA. Any and all help, suggestions, comments will be greatly appreciated. William P. Coleman ( talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As has just been pointed out to me, there is apparently a deadline of sometime in late March for all "bad" images -- including book covers -- to either have a certain template added or be deleted. Basically, from what I understand, the image tags are no longer considered viable (why still use them, I ask?) and it's no longer considered acceptable to just put a line of prose like "This cover copyright 1929 Harper Collins, scanned to illustrate the article on the book in question", etc. Now each one has to have a template that states the patently obvious over and over again. Anyway, presumably once that deadline arrives there's going to be a mass deletion of images that the bots never got to and that didn't have this digital placebo added. As I've stated before, I've given up trying to rescue my uploaded images as the rationales and formats I used were perfectly fine at the time of uploading and unless Wikipedia pays me for my time I'm not revisiting them everytime someone decides to change the rules. I'm obviously not the only one as several book cover images on my watchlist (that I didn't upload) have been deleted because the original uploader either got flooded with bot messages and never saw the notification or chose to ignore it. The Castle (novel) is the latest casuality. There are a few editors who are willing to take the time to help rescue many of these images, and good on them, but I imagine there are many more that will be missed. I guess the bottom line is if you've uploaded book cover images -- especially prior to this time last year -- and you are concerned that they remain on Wikipedia, you'll need to take time out to jump through the image police's hoops before the end of March otherwise you'll have re-upload them again. 23skidoo ( talk) 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the Westeros article should be nominated for Good Article status. Are there any objections? Almighty Clam 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See debate on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Book_reviews. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say Hello to everyone. Much to read and learn here, I'm sure I will enjoy ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.75.124 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose creating a task force for cleaning up articles related to The Clique series by Lisi Harrison. None of the articles are very well written (i.e: POVs, grammer, spelling, page format, wikistandards) and, while I've been trying to clean them up, I'm going to need some help.Intentionally I meant to start this as a WikiProject: The Clique, but I figured that since it's such a narrow topic, I should just form a task force for it and- as you all know- I need atleast 5 editors behind me on this to start it up. Any one who wants to join should contact me on my talkpage. Thanks! Yours truly, Broadway4life155 ( talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The Tom Holt sci-fi novel Here Comes the Sun (novel) has been listed at AFD, apparently on the grounds that since it is a stub, it is therefore a NN subject. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. I urge Wikiproject members to a) state your opinion in support in lit-stubs at the AFD discussion here and, of course, if you have knowledge of this particular book, please expand the article. 23skidoo ( talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to concentrate all literature requests at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature. All links from other pages should now point to that particular page. However, it is still a mess. For example, it is still mainly ordered alphabetically according to the authors' first names. Their are frequesnt mispelingz of authors' names and bok titels, and lots of requests should have been made somewhere else rather than there.
If some of us could go through that list, or parts of it, just once or from time to time, we would help improve making literature requests and could also sort out better what articles are still missing here at Wikipedia. Please have a look at it. Thanks in advance, <K F> 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should define what comes under the heading of literature before we rush out and tag every book related article out there, some books shouldn't be added because they aren't very good in a literary sense, but others out there that have been classified as literature, don't deserve the title that has been given to them, maybe we should ponder this further, my talk page is always open. DangerTM ( talk) 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I for one don't see a need to classify literature as it pertains to this WikiProject. What is important is that we cover fiction, whether it be in short story or novel form. The idea of what constitutes "Literature" has changed vastly over the past one hundred years; On the Origin of Species, for example, is often found in the "Fiction and literature" section of bookstores although it's non-fiction and therefore out of our scope. Poetry is obviously considered "Literature", as well, but there's WikiProject Poetry for that. We should not confuse things by referring to our concentrated works as "Literature", since it's such a broad-sweeping term. We deal with fiction. < / two time English major > María ( habla con migo) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But we are not defining literature as anything written down, as it was said before "...applied to writing which has a claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect." That is literature, oh and I was using the 1982 edition, hard cover, so the definition will have evolved since then, but it was the only definition I could find. LIterature is more than books. DangerTM ( talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright people, the definition we used in university (English undergraduate, which I topped by the way) was Literature is text that is valued by many because, through beauty of form, it represents the culture and values of the context it was written in. Which basically means, so long as it is beautifully represented, and it portrays the culture and values of the time period in which it was written in, it is literature, if it doesn't do that, it isn't. DangerTM ( talk) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is the whole point of this argument, What is Literature? I have read most of Jane Austen's work, I did so in University, all I can say is that it left me cold, I did not enjoy it one little bit, which is more of an assesment of me rather than of the writter, remember, People read in search of a mind more original than our own. She was a very intelligent woman, and she was writting as a result of the times in which she was writting in, the context of her work is; She was on the periphery of the middle class, she wrote about what made sense to her. I implore everyone to read the novels, they will teach about the life she lived, and about the time in which they lived in. Which doesn't mean that I have to like her work. I am saying that I can respect her tallent, her grasp of English language was far greater than mine, I can respect her for the way in which her writting represented the times, but that doesn't mean that I have to enjoy the books that she wrote, I found them dead boring, but that is just one man's opinion. Oh and wrad, I graduated a few years back from English, and I can tell you, I may have not been from the genration that thinks that all of the old works (war and peace, etc) were incredible and the only things that should be taught, but my teachers certainly were. DangerTM ( talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, is anyone on my side at all? It has been a long and open discussion, and I cannot see if anyone agrees with my point of view in the slightest. DangerTM ( talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the goals were not to catalogue notable works of fiction, but rather to catalogue ever work of fiction that is currently on wikipedia. Maybe instead of art we should classify literature to values? Courage to me is set in stone, bravery beyond the call of duty, etc, etc. But maybe what I see as bravery, is not as brave to others. Such as the Soviets in WWII, victory or death, they were either killed by an officer of their own army, or killed by the Germans, yet they still fought on, when I think bravery, I do not think victory or death, I think something different. I guess what I really am trying to say is, that to me something may seem different than to someone else, which makes classification of any kind difficult. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least try and pursue a meaning for a subjective word. Bravery relates to the values of the person or people showing it, as does literature. DangerTM ( talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing that an election should be held, where a devoted board of members is elected to govern the project for an entire month, or longer as the situation may dictate. DangerTM ( talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently saw the mention of this discussion in the newsletter, and I think it's a great idea. But I do think that having one person from each task force is a bit much, I mean, we could get things a bit complicated trying to hold about 7 elections, and I don't think it's all that necessary either. My proposal is that we have 3 'council members'. What I do think we should also think is about, is whether or not we'll have something like one president, and a vice and so on, or everyone's an equal member on the council. I think it would be best to have one president, but I thought I'd just put that out there. ~ Bella Swan 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
One can never go to far when the natural constraints of society do not bound us. DangerTM ( talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm seeing two different templates for noting needed infoboxes -- one is Novelinfoboxneeded and one is |need-infobox=yes -- which method is preferred? Thanks! Aristophanes68 ( talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The article David Alexander (author) is currently up for AFD here. Subject is a writer of science fiction and non-fiction, has several books out by major publishers, and appears to have been nominated on the grounds that the article has no scholarly sources as yet. 23skidoo ( talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
MELUS |
This user reads multicultural literature. |
Is anyone else here interested in ethnic lit? I'd love some help boosting the presence of minority authors and books! Aristophanes68 ( talk) 06:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (WMWP: "Well-Meaning White Person")
I response to the above calls for an election I have established the mechanism (in the style of WP:MILHIST's version - thanks for cribbing go to them).
Those interested in standing for four positions as a coordinator should add their names on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008 having checked out the basics on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. Please make this as widely known throughout the project as you can and if you would like to stand please do. Also if you have someone else in mind please contact them and let them add their own name. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know the opinion of the members of this project about the policy WP:NOT#PLOT. The policy seems reasonable but has been used by some editors to delete parts of plots or entire plots, rather than to add context information. There is an ongoing discussion about it. Since WP:NOT is a policy about the kind of information that should not go into Wikipedia, some editors interpret it in a very strict sense. It has been proposed to delete this policy and transfer it in the manual of style as a suggestion on how to improve an article, rather than suppress some content. It would be good if some of you can contribute to that discussion. Eubulide ( talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at WikiProject Novels/Maintenance, I noticed there is no 11th Century Novel category, but I think there should be. The Tale of Genji is considered a novel and was written in the 11th century. Jacqke ( talk) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
How about an Early Novels category, with the criteria of including all novels dating from, say, the 15th century and earlier? That would cover the over-categorization issue (which I personally find a bit contradictory as we've had it drilled into us that we're supposed to categorize articles as specifically as possible). 23skidoo ( talk) 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've come across a temp project set up by a university course that is writing a series of articles on novels. The class is concentrating on Spanish novels. They have, so far, upgraded two articles to GA nom. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Three new articles on three books ( White is for Magic, Silver is for Secrets, and Red is for Rememberance) have been written. They fall into the scope of this Wiki project, so I thought I'd let you know so they can be added.
Thanks.
kka rma 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed a jump in faux categories, such as Novels By 'a particular author' being used as a Category. I am not familiar with your project, is this rampant? It is a complete redundancy and a misuse of the Category concept. If an author's books have articles unto themselves, they will be linked from the original author's article or in the case of a prolific author, from a List of their works article. Creating categories to display a list of these links is a wasted effort. EraserGirl ( talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I will indeed slink away. But it is truly a bad use of the category concept. Books by ONE author is a very very different thing from novels by various authors. Complete redundancy. EraserGirl ( talk)
I've tried to locate guidelines for classifying novels into by year cats, but failed. And sometimes such classification is far from obvious.
Here is an example (and I can provide dozens more such if needed): The World of Null-A. The novel was serialized in 1945, first published in 1948 in book form, and then (to confuse WP editors, no doubt:) the revised version was published in 1970. So, in which Category:~year~ novels it belongs: in all three, two (which?), one (which?), or neither (the last one is a joke:)???
It seems to me the existing tendency is to treat year in Category:~year~ novels as the year of the first publication in the book form and the years of all major revised book publications, ignoring the year(s) of the serialized publication. But I think that's something to be discussed and put clearly into guidelines. Henry Merrivale ( talk) 05:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is the the category refers to year of first publication in book form, period, and not the year of any subsequent revised version (which would be cumbersome). As such, Naked Lunch (for example) is only listed under its original year of book publication, and not under any other years when revised versions have been issued. Similarly, Lost Laysen, a Margaret Mitchell novella written in 1916, is listed as a 1990s book (I forget the exact year) because it never saw publication till then. A more recent example is the Kerouac/Burroughs novel And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks which was written in 1945 but I categorized it under 2008 because it'll be published for the first time this November. It doesn't have to get any more complicated than that. 23skidoo ( talk) 12:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Regular visitors here might like to see Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page. -- Scott Davis Talk 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) - placed on the Collaboration talk page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The Election is still open for candidate entry - please do consider signing up. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As part of of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile debate the above statement has been made. If may be documented somewhere - I haven't looked too far - but it just seems absurd to me. Lesser notability than any major works yes, but to say "no notability by association" is surly patently nonsensical. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey all. I recently got an email from a graduate student asking me for an interview about my use of Wikipedia -- the email specifically mentioned the Novels Project, so I wondered if any of you all have received the same request. Is it legit? Thanks, Aristophanes68 ( talk) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I just did the interview myself. It's pretty straightforward. There are actually a couple of different Wikipedia-related studies ongoing from this same school as I was approached by another researcher on a different, but still Wiki-related topic. 23skidoo ( talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I take part, too, please? Katie ( Let's talk!! ) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed blocked user and sockpuppet account DangerTM ( talk · contribs) from Novels Project Coordinators selection process: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI another novel, Different Strokes is up for AFD here. It's the old "it's not War and Peace so it's not notable" argument again. 23skidoo ( talk) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is too frustrating for me to deal with. Some of these are works of Nikolai Gogol, including the story that inspired Night on Bald Mountain. Good god non-notable? -- JayHenry ( talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Aristophanes68 ( talk) 03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)I did add that notability tag. For someone who is unfamiliar with Gogol's works the article does nothing to introduce them to the subject. As per the guidelines for fiction, an article should include assertions of notability, complete with references and secondary sources. A plot summary should be part of the article, but it should not be the whole article. In your post to me you gave a perfect example of the type of information that should be in the article: You write that it "has been thoroughly commented [on] worldwide, and was a staple of French baccalauréat literature exams for several years." That is an assertion of notability that should be in the article. —BradV 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I've gone through the entire list as an extreme inclusionist and either removed the notablilty tag or deleted the article. Feel free to look through the list; or even adopt one or two and bring it up to standard. In general, the articles are either stub-class or suffer from in-universe problems. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment regarding the A3 speedy deletions. They were almost all in-universe 'minor character' articles with no sources. There isn't an obvious code for it. {{ prod}}ing them is process without purpose as these article have had the {{ notability}} tag on them for months. Over all, I deleted about 10%. If you want to restore any, the red links are visible to all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I find notability frustrating because there seems to be this mentality (among the people who devote their energies to enforcing these guidelines) that editors who are familiar with a subject will, by dint of their interest, fill articles with "cruft" about the topic. The editor that tagged the Gogol works above isn't necessarily wrong that they have "notability" issues, but this clearly demonstrates how badly written, even absurd, the notability guidelines are. The problem is also the culture that allows these anti-encyclopedic attitudes to continue to flourish (although, I think it's improving, especially after many of the hardcore "deletionists" turned out to be abusive sockpuppeteers). A good example of the broken culture is the travails of this poor user who created a stub on a major C.S. Lewis work, which was speedily deleted, and rewarded with an indef block. Then, after revealing himself as a professor of medieval literature, and explaining the relevance of the C.S. Lewis work, another admin declined his unblock request and ignored what he had to say about an article. It's frustrating that people who want to build an encyclopedia have to put up with these attitudes. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a new user, I just wanted to wish you guys hello, and any assistance would be greatly appreciated, Thanks. WilliamMThompson ( talk) 10:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
there are currently more than 200 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here.
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This was already done. See above! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I'm glad to join your conmunity, and wish to assit as far as possible.
The result was merge into WP:NOVELS (as a task force / work group.) -- Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Merger proposal from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Shannara. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The result was Wrong Destination. -- Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Merger proposal from
Wikipedia:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes. Cheers!
Wassupwestcoast (
talk) 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Several related projects were inactive. I've been bold and made them task forces. Further clean up / maintenance is still needed but more or less the merge is complete. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Was bold and transformed the inactive project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Was bold and transformed the inactive project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)