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.

I just noticed on my watchlist that a first edition cover was recently speedy deleted by the Fair Use Gestapo (which means the uploader -- I don't think it was me -- might not even have been notified). The victim was Dr. No (novel). Ironically some non-first edition cover images were kept. Since the WikiProject is trying to promote the use of First Edition covers in the infoboxes, this is a dangerous precedent and who knows how many other First Ed. covers have been taken off? When and if the "AFD/IFD notification" page is created, this will have to be taken into account. I no longer contribute images to Wikipedia so I can't do anything to help in this case (I don't have a first edition of Dr. No anyway). Perhaps with a little research the speedy deleter can be made to see the error of their ways, especially given that the deletion is counter-productive to one of the aims of this Wikiproject. 23skidoo 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Page has been created - Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Articles-Images in danger of deletion here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And duly watchlisted by me! You might also want to add a link to the wikiproject links box at the top right of this and other WP:NOVEL pages if you haven't already done so. I wonder if it might not also be helpful to send a note regarding this page to the maintainers of the bots that usually send out the notices asking that the page be added to their to-do lists (although I don't know whether they can be programmed to leave their messages under the appropriate heading). And there are also a few places where the image deletionists tend to congregate. 23skidoo 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an article explaining what Paranormal Romance is, but why is there no category? Maybe this has been debated before, but wouldn't it make sense to make a list of all of the PR's on Wikipedia? I'm not very good at making categories or I would have done it myself.

71.117.41.22 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Paranormal romance novels has been created. I've put it as a subcategory of both Romance novels and Speculative fiction novels as the genre seems to encompass both science fiction and fantasy elements. If there is anything else, let me know. Gizzakk 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added it to the project hierarchy on the main page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 16:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Angel Eyes (novel) (via WP:PROD on 18 October 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 11:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Renamed as it is a novel. Also challenged the prod - added notability info and reference with plot. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Women Lie (via WP:PROD on 19 October 2007) Kept

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also challenged the prod - added notability info and reference with plot - also note we have a specific page for article challenges. Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed novel articles :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance (2005 novel) (via WP:PROD) Violence of Action (via WP:PROD)

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we were too late with those two. Please remember there is now a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Articles-Images in danger of deletion where these notices are now supposed to go. 23skidoo 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if it's been covered, as I didn't see it in the archives, but how would I know what's a good reference for things like the critical reception of a novel? Amazon is out, apparently, but what about Barnes & Noble? Or sites like infinityplus.co.uk? I'd like to use something like Publishers Weekly, but they seem to be a pay site, and I can't see using that as a reference. So what's a guy to do? Howa0082 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• You bring up a good point. Despite its claims of being the next-generation of knowledge sources, Wikipedia is still stuck back in 1972 when it comes to what sources it will accept. Print sources are generally the best, or sources published by major sites that basically use professional reviewers. That's what I mean by this being stuck back in 1972. Basically if the source satisfies WP:CITE then you're OK. If you can't find a satisfactory source, you might as well skip that part of the discussion, in my opinion, unless you feel it is somehow critical to the understanding of a novel, or if you're trying to justify the article's existence. 23skidoo 04:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Can anyone tell me if there's a Wikiproject that deals with articles about literary theory in its various manifestations? Many thanks, DionysosProteus 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think the WP:BOOKS would be the most likely place - however it isn't that well supported. Maybe there is a need. Obviously we can be involved but within the limitations of our scope. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal up for a project focusing on general, basic literature articles here. Please add your name if you are interested. Thanks, Wrad 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See above. WP:BOOKS is closest to a Literary wikiproject as possible. Create a taskforce there? feydey 23:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Literature is about way more than books. See my points at the proposal page and at the WP:Books talk page. Wrad 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

for accepting my application! If there's anything I can do, just post it on this page and it's done. Also, I'l need some of you guys to support my WikiProject, Fledgeling WikiProject Small Engines, as it's still in its request stage. Again, big thanks,-- Gp75motorsports 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's a link so people can check it out? Doczilla 19:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is: are (all) novels also books? Should Wikipedia novel categories be subcategories of the appropriate books categories (e.g. Category:2001 novels a subcategory of Category:2001 books)? The discussion takes place at Template talk:Novelyr. GregorB 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This used to be the case by default, but...

From book:

A book is a set or collection of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of paper, parchment, or other material, usually fastened together to hinge at one side. A single sheet within a book is called a leaf, and each side of a sheet is called a page. A book produced in electronic format is known as an e-book.

Books may also refer to a literary work, or a main division of such a work. In library and information science, a book is called a monograph, to distinguish it from serial periodicals such as magazines, journals or newspapers.

In novels, a book may be divided into several large sections, also called books (Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, etc).

Additionally, despite the "a book produce in electronic format..." comment, the article later includes this: The term e-book (electronic book) in the broad sense is an amount of information like a conventional book, but in digital form. It is made available through internet, CD-ROM, etc. In the popular press the term e-Book sometimes refers to a device such as the Sony Librie EBR-1000EP, which is meant to read the digital form and present it in a human readable form. Most of this article seems to indicate that "books" (as opposed to the derivitive term "e-book") are physical objects of a certain handful of formats.

Online fan fiction, additionally, is usually not referred to as being published in "books" or "e-books", even if it is novel-length. Most things labeled "e-books" seem to be downloadable in my experience.

So, what can we take away from this?

1.)"Book" is usually used for print material, not internet publications, which may or may not be referred under a different term ("e-book") which apparently originated as more of a metaphorical term than a literal one. The term "book" without modifiers still refers to physical, tangible, non-electronic collections of writing.

2.) The term "book" does not typically refer to serial publications (I can actually think of one exception, but that's in reference to "comic books", whose creators sometimes refer to each monthly magazine-format chapter as a "book" - we are not talking about comic books here, though, but prose).

This means that novels published to the web could easily not be considered "books" even if they are referred to as "e-books", and serialized novels in magazine and newspaper periodicals would also not be considered to have been published in "books". Additionally, the term "book" can be used to refer to subdivisions of longer novels (Lord of the Rings is the example that jumps to my mind), as opposed to the reverse (a novel being a subdivision of book/books).

Is the argument largely semantic, here? Well, yes. But my point is a great number of novels would probably be considered to not be "books", and people might fuss over this, and that it's therefore not worth it to make novels a subcategory of books on here, so long as "novels" is still a subcat of "literature". ;) Runa27 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out... WP:POETRY is on the upswing for activity after being nearly without a pulse for a couple years. We're really trying to legitimatize the project so if anyone here wants to keep an eye on us or help out, just swing by! Many thanks. -- Midnightdreary 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Mann is in need of additional cites. -- 201.53.4.206 19:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

May well be but the article is out of scope of the project. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The structure of WikiProject Novels is confusing and user-unfriendly. We should expect a particularly large cross-section of Wikipedia users to be interested in the subject "Novels", therefore we should be especially careful to make this project user-friendly and easy to use. Please place a high priority on fixing this problem. If you don't understand the nature of the problem, please have someone else clarify it for you. -- 201.53.4.206 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as someone who has come on and not signed up with a full wiki identity I would at least expect some "content" to your criticism. With substantive points and agreement from others with your observations we can start to do something about it, otherwise! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If you don't understand the nature of the problem, please have someone else clarify it for you. -- 201.53.4.206 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea - I thought as much - you don't know do you! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 12:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I want to know whether this novel should have its own separate page.

Generally yes, if sufficiently notable and there would be enough material to support to separate pages. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It currently redirects to Riftwar, after having been merged from a single article.

I believe that it should be located on its own page because of the decent plot line written for it, but I wasn't sure if my beliefs are 100% correct, so I thought I'd seek guidance.

Quite right! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure, but I think the page Raymond E. Feist is breaking copyright rules by having blurbs from the books written on it.

if there are "blurb" then yes it "is " breaking copyright and they should be rapidly removed. Ideally any summary written should be sourceable (e.e. referenced) but that doesn't mean a word for word copy. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks if you can help. Salavat 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 08:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok after checking the back pages of my own books, it seems that all of the blurbs written on the page is copyrighted. Also there is a list of covers on the same page. I will set to fixing this but i want to check something first. Is there any set way a bibliography should be displayed. I think the one on Gary Paulsen's page is pretty correct but im not sure. Salavat 07:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seem pretty good to me - I not completely sure about the series based version rather than the chronological type, but this is about as clean as it gets. Any more specific information like "publisher" etc can be given on the novel article page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also if I'm going to make this big edit, I don't want someone accusing me of vandalism, so what do you think would be a good Edit summary for deleting all the blurbs and removing the list of images? Salavat 07:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

how about "Publisher's Blurbs are copyright material - copyright material should not be used". It would be nice to expand on this in the talk page with a perhaps boilerplate text with a slightly more encouraging piece about adding a summary written in your own words ideally with sourcing and references. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, ill remove this stuff as soon as i have time. Salavat ( talk) 00:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

New question, is there anywhere in this wikiproject's guidelines that i can refer to, in order to back up my creating single pages for novels, instead of having them all creating in a series page? Salavat ( talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but it really a function of the notability of the novel and the quality (and size) of the article. if the work on this the article comments is not really notable then there is not much you can do. Otherwise expand the article with quality content and it should ensure it's survival. See article talk comments. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a bit of trivia. This is the book that Harry is reading in bed while on the phone with Sally, just before the scene where they sleep together in, When Harry met Sally.

This is an article about a recently self-published book. I am reluctant to AfD it, due to ignorance about novels and notability etc. Could someone with the right knowledge have a look at it? Anarchia ( talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• It does look a bit dubious. It's not listed on Amazon and the links and sources are a bit suspect. The article definitely comes off more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, and some of the links are dead, too. Any other opinions out there? 23skidoo ( talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems legit to me - however the issue of notability does naturally arise. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no signs of notability. Doczilla 08:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have begun an AfD of this article. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_True_Snow_White. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to raise a perennial problem. The need to raise the profile of involvement. In other words recruiting more members and getting more members to become more active. The is both within the project itself and in improving the articles within our scope. All ideas to this end are welcome but I would like to start off by proposing a few.

• Project coordinators (as WP:MILHIST or similar)
• Job centre ("center" for the U.S. people) - where specific responsibilities might be picked up by volunteers. (i.e. "monitoring groups of stub cats", "editing the newsletter", "welcoming new members", "mentoring new members", "managering the announcements template", "job centre manager", "particular task force coordinators", "outreach and promotion", "task force expansion", "collaboration management", "assessment management", "peer review team", "inter WikiProject collaboration" and any others people can think of please)

none of this is intended to be "heavy" but more to assist the smooth running of the project. The main aim would be to clear give individual editors "ownership" of tasks so that we can encourage more involvement from everyone. I get the impression many have little idea how they might contribute.

Anyway more ideas and reactions please. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 11:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Where do we sign up? :) María ( habla con migo) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your spirit. I had only floated the idea so far - but if you could give me a notion as to what you might volunteer for - I might be able to set something in motion early. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 15:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would love to be more active in the project, so I could go for just about anything; I could definitely see myself volunteering for outreach (greeting, mentoring), some kind of peer review team, and assessments, of course. I'm also quite keen on finding book cover images; I always thought we should have some kind of a "Request images here" page where people who aren't aware of where/how to find first edition covers or even just add the fair use rationale; that way we won't have images being deleted right and left. I hate those bot notices.

As for expansion of task forces, I've always thought that there should be some kind of Award Winners category where we can group together the prestigious award winning novels and work on improving those according to our MOS, since they are arguably the most critically acclaimed works we have to play around with. María ( habla con migo) 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One difficulty you'll have in recruiting members is simply how very, very broad "Novels" is. Doczilla 08:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We have obviously had no difficulties in the past, what with nearly three hundred members as of now. :) I think "Novels" is relatively easy to define, and people have little difficulty in understanding our mission statement. María ( habla con migo) 14:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST have as broad a subject area (Military History), but have more task forces to focus editor involvement. Perhaps we should have more of these and group our efforts more. What my aim is here is not just to gain more members but to get more activists. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest a "keeping an eye on book cover images" job? If anybody needs help with their image uploads so that they don't get tagged for deletion by bots, I'd be happy to do that. Bláthnaid 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, will add that and article challenges to the mix too. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One question: how do you become a member? I am posting articles, does this count? -- 76.251.237.193 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you had a user name, but please see the members list for more info. Also, please remember that this general forum is for general Wikiproject discussion; if you have a question or two regarding specific novels, then you can direct them to the respective articles' talk pages. Take care, María ( habla con migo) 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks-- 76.251.237.193 ( talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone's got it in for Jerry, Catherine and Una. The discussion is here [1] Nick mallory ( talk) 09:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi: Could you guys incorporate Light House: A Trifle into your WikiProject and rate it and perhaps categorize it? It's a new but fleshed out article on a first novel.- BillDeanCarter ( talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering this is a new article it appears a very good one. Others may look it over to check accuracy and other things that may be added etc. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. It spent some time in the List of works by William Monahan before becoming its own article. What did you mean by a 1st edition cover? I think this is the 1st edition because it looks exactly like the hardcover cover I have. Do you mean first printing 1st edition?- BillDeanCarter ( talk) 11:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that if there is a cover it ideally should be the 1st. You add no caption that declares it to be the 1st. So, I just normally add this "comment" to prompt those who have not loaded a "1st edition cover" to load one, or those who have added one, to add a caption to declare it. I'll add one as I assume from what you say it is a "1st". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 12:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. Thanks.- BillDeanCarter ( talk) 12:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is an article on the short story " He" by H. P. Lovecraft. The problem is that there is another short story titled "He" written by Katherine Anne Porter that currently isn't on here. This may lead to some confusion for people who are looking for the "He" by Porter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leechristensen ( talk • contribs)

added both short stories to He (disambiguation) page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, if and when an article on the Porter story is written, an additional dab statement can be added to the Lovecraft story page. 23skidoo ( talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Herland (novel) could use some cleanup. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I currently have 5 articles that are largely ready to go (except for one) about the Dragon series by Laurence Yep. They haven't been put together in an anthology of some kind. I'm thinking of making a collage out of the 4 books that make up the series to use on the article page about the series as a whole. Is this kosher? -- BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, unfortunately. The collage would still consist of four copyrighted book covers, so it could be viewed as an image gallery (similar to album cover galleries, which are frowned upon). In my opinion, it would be best to use the cover of the first book in the series article, and then use the other covers on the individual articles. Bláthnaid 12:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless I find a pic of all 4 book covers together, right? -- BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't "bust a gut" over this issue. Most novel series articles do not have cover illustrations for the reasons mentioned above (i.e. copyright and fair use issues). Also the most importance part is the quality of thetext of such article rather than dubious rationales for images. If there is an obvious need for a image then by all means but not normally. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you could find instances of compliance/noncompliance with that if you look; Lord of the Rings for example does this, and it's FA. Personally I like to have illustrations in my articles if possible, but no biggie on 1 vs. 4. -- BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the "Lord of the Rings" example and is doesn't seem to add to the article anything significant. I would be better if is gave the cover for the first combined edition published as Tolkien originally planned. (it was divided for publishing reasons, against his original intentions). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for "wikifying" the templates I was using. BrokenSphere ^{Msg me} 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's what we do! Keep editing :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The message on the talk page here suggests the article may be a copyvio. Can someone from this project follow up on this claim? TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely out of scope this is non-fiction . :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/ _(Desk) 09:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated A Canticle for Leibowitz for GA. If someone has some time, could she/he do a GA review on this noteworthy novel, please? Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)