This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate page. |
|
Novels Project‑class | |||||||
|
This is a WikiProject article pattern belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. It is to be used as a starting block for new novel articles and as aid to restyle existing articles.
Someone is suggesting that in the interests of standardization, the WHOLE section heading above must be used in the article about Scott Turow's novel Presumed Innocent, even though the information that follows it is only about a film adaptation, with no mention of TV or stage drama. This template should be USEFUL; it should not be a straightjacket or a Prucrustean bed or a totalitarian dictator, that supercedes the user's intelligence. Michael Hardy 22:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it be catered for by either sticking with the existing heading
==Film, TV or theatrical adaptations== or ==Dramatic adaptations==
and then a new heading with something like
==Other literature adaptations== or ==Other media adapatations==
This has the advantage of distinguishing the normal type of adaptation (ie. the dramatic or theatrical) and any other (which is a lot rarer). The problem I see across most novel articles that take the general "Adaptation" route is almost complete lack of consistency, it would be good to get a general scheme that works for all novels and everyone is comfortable working with. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am still convinced of the difference of the dramatic adaptation. This is what is normally thought of when writing an "Adaptation" section anyway. The other types mentioned "comic books", "concept albums" or "video games" are often written up as "pop-culture media" or some such; which is slightly too dismissive in my view!
As an alternative can we adjust the existing to: (to include the "Radio drama" point)
==Film, TV or other dramatic adaptations== or
and then a new heading with something like
==Non dramatic adaptations==
These could then be used in tandem, or seperately with no lose of meaning. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw discussion about changing category:~year~ books to category:~year~ novel. Can the template be updated to reflect this? PeregrineV 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The use of a slash in "allusions/references" in several of the headings is unattractive. Why not use words instead of punctuation to convey the point: "allusions and references", or just one or the other where appropriate? — Michael Z. 2006-10-03 18:45 Z
An argument has been made in Talk:To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Cleaning up the article that this template's single-sentence lede is too short and should include the content the template currently partitions into the plot introduction section. -- Meyer 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new template. There are several significant flaws with this one.
Where schorlarly source don't exist this leaves most popular culture out to dry. This is an issue for the wider wikipedia cummunity to determine is this "PC" material can be included. As long as the references can be verifiable then the "Release details" could stand. I would entirely agree if you were saying that the editions should major on the "first, earliest and major" to avoid the advert based references. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Having said all that I have I am not trying to be obstructive and I do think this debate is important enough to alert more peoples attention to it. Thank you for raising these issues and I believe we should let this debate run for quite some time so we can get a number of responses and get the best possible result. Which I'm sure is the main aim here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added the debate to our project announcements template, and will include it in our monthly newsletter - due out in just over a week. There may be other opportunities though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I support Awadewit's revised template. The idea that every novel should have all the current template's sections (such as "Explanation of the novel's title," "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science," or "Release details") is irritating. If an editor decides that an article should have these sections, fine. But the template should be a bare-bones road map to making a very good novel article. If a novel warrants having more sections, then so be it. But don't leave editors with the impression that every novel article must have a "Release details" or an "Explanation of the novel's title." Best, -- Alabamaboy 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the above template changes.I disagree with making the novel template leaner. I would much rather have the template "guide" me with a ton of subsections, which I, as the editor at that time, can include or omit. I also prefer the plain English version of the current template, as perhaps some novels may not have had a "literary analysis" done on them, or may not have a “historical context”. “Reception & legacy” would be included under “literary significance”.
I can understand the desire to make the novel articles more scholarly, but I don’t see it as feasible. Wikipedia is not a scholarly work, it’s a reference source, with millions(?) of individual contributors, and all it entails. I’d much rather leave the professional dissection of novels to the professionals. As a part-time contributor, a fully fleshed template full of helpful hints works much better for me. PeregrineV 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
A "fully fleshed" template may sound like a good idea, but the problem with it is a) who's going to develop it?; b) no matter how complete the template is, it leaves things out and worse, forces you to put things in categories where they don't belong. Also, as a scholar I rely on Wikipedia's novel articles more than the general public, I would be willing to wager. I used the Uncle Tom's Cabin article to help me study for my comprehensive exams. Because of the importance of the novel articles to me, I am particularly interested in developing a new template. And as an editor of novel articles, it has become abundantly clear that the novel template as it currently stands is oriented toward the following things: allusiveness of a literary work, plot, and character. If you look at other encyclopedias for the types of things they include/exclude, plot and character drop away, as does allusiveness. The types of things that encyclopedias are good at recording and elaborating on are: historical context of the work and author; popular and scholarly criticism and reception; and stylistics/thematics. I think we need to have a debate on a new template, and I think the ones proposed above are a good starting place. Victorianist 00:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've redone Kusma's edit which has the effect of removing bad advice on spoilers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this means amongst other things that important plot elements may have to be dealt with in the lead. For instance the lead of an article about Brave New World should probably mention the Savage's failure to integrate with the culture of his mother, and his eventual suicide. It most definitely is not in order to recommend that spoilers should be confined to as single section marked with a warning tag. -- Tony Sidaway 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This template seems to be encouraging the creation of trivia sections, listing them as a key part of a novel-article's structure. Do we want that? I thought we were trying to phase them out by incorporating relevant information into the rest of the article and eliminating the rest. -- Aquillion 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Has this been fixed up so someone can start a new page by just substing the template into their new article page? Would suggest that be an option for all project templates, and the usage can be gotten out of the way following the WP:DPP guideline. Noincludes don't come along on subst operations, so should be fairly simple. The current pre block goes to the /doc page, etcetera. If that's not clear, get a hold of me! // Fra nkB 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to seriously think about the "Sources, references, external links, quotations" section as quotations seem awfully close to Trivia. Quotations don't seem necessary. I think if an article will include quotations, it should include them as part of a discussion about the novel: for instance, a scholar's take on a particular quotation, or a quotation that seems to tell us something about the novel. See the quotation I included from the opening chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five in a recent edit. It seems clear that the quotation is serving a larger point in the article. Unless someone can justify the quotations section, I think it should be deleted. Victorianist 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a blank infobox template on the page, so we can cut and paste without having to erase every line of instruction? (Like the Template:Infobox_Writer page has.) What's the best way to do it -- post it inside NoWiki markers? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I'm just passing thru, but it seems to me that the template ought to inlcude links to source text, where they exist? eg. the project gutenberg (or other) etext? (and, while I'm at it, i'll put a pitch in for links to the free/public domain librivox audio recordings too, but i'll recuse myself from that question, as i am a volunteer there). Mackinaw ( talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For some categories of novel, notably genre mysteries, a character list can be highly appropriate and should precede the plot summary. It was fairly common for genre mysteries published in the 1930s and 1940s to include a character list before the beginning of the narrative.
In many other mysteries, an early passage in the narrative is little more than a catalog of characters, so that the reader has a list of suspects and witnesses in hand.
Putting this list in an explicit section section may offend some purists, but it offends me to interrupt narrative text for what is de facto a bulleted list, and which is far easier to compose as such than as narrative text. -- Rich Rostrom ( Talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that "~Stub notice, if necessary~" appears before the categories. Stub tags should go after categories, so that the stub categories are listed last - see Wikipedia:Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub. PamD ( talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've boldly rearranged this template to more closely match what is actually being seen in novel FAs and GAs over the last year or so, removing a lot of excessive sections, the double plot section, and rearranging others. If you disagree, let's discuss. I also cleaned up the instructions some. One thing I did not address was the need for alt text in the infobox, which should be handled by the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that since this page has been redone, the 'Character List' section was removed. As I remember it, it was considered optional, as long as it was well written. I never really was a fan of character lists, but I would like some clarification as to whether a character list is now discouraged from being in an article, whether it is up to the editor, or what. 74.95.169.158 ( talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am finding difficulty putting The Shobies' Story , a novella, into either the Novel Infobox because it is not an independent book, or the Short Story Infobox template because that infobox is precoded to put double quotes around the name. Can someone create a novella infobox to use, or perhaps enlighten me if novellas or novelettes should go in double quotes? I would just classify it as a short story since the dividing line between a short story and a novella is probably subject to debate, but this work has won awards specifically for the novella. Cheers -- Npd2983 ( talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_14#December_14 that I nominated Template:Skeleton novel fro deletion. Debresser ( talk) 19:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that a publication history is relevant before a critical response or analysis or major themes section? It seems to me that showing when the work was first published should come before anyone has a chance to offer analysis or response. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 13:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedians! I've noticed a number of articles that contain elaborate plot summaries which are completely unsourced. Example: Seventeen by Booth Tarkington and Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana. Shouldn't the plot summary (which the article template calls for) be supported by citations to reliable secondary sources? If none are readily available, one could use a brief summary of the publisher's plot summary and cite the publisher's website. Thoughts? Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the article template reflect this?
In case it's helpful, the following is a quote from Template:Infobox book/doc:
- published
- Alternate parameter, using the following composite format: year (publisher) (language, when originally written in a foreign language); use {{ plainlist}} when there is more than one notable edition
- Note:
|published=
is acceptable, but no longer preferred to|publisher=
and|pub_date=
, which have been restored to common usage.
– spida-tarbell ❀ ( talk) ( contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate page. |
|
Novels Project‑class | |||||||
|
This is a WikiProject article pattern belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. It is to be used as a starting block for new novel articles and as aid to restyle existing articles.
Someone is suggesting that in the interests of standardization, the WHOLE section heading above must be used in the article about Scott Turow's novel Presumed Innocent, even though the information that follows it is only about a film adaptation, with no mention of TV or stage drama. This template should be USEFUL; it should not be a straightjacket or a Prucrustean bed or a totalitarian dictator, that supercedes the user's intelligence. Michael Hardy 22:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it be catered for by either sticking with the existing heading
==Film, TV or theatrical adaptations== or ==Dramatic adaptations==
and then a new heading with something like
==Other literature adaptations== or ==Other media adapatations==
This has the advantage of distinguishing the normal type of adaptation (ie. the dramatic or theatrical) and any other (which is a lot rarer). The problem I see across most novel articles that take the general "Adaptation" route is almost complete lack of consistency, it would be good to get a general scheme that works for all novels and everyone is comfortable working with. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am still convinced of the difference of the dramatic adaptation. This is what is normally thought of when writing an "Adaptation" section anyway. The other types mentioned "comic books", "concept albums" or "video games" are often written up as "pop-culture media" or some such; which is slightly too dismissive in my view!
As an alternative can we adjust the existing to: (to include the "Radio drama" point)
==Film, TV or other dramatic adaptations== or
and then a new heading with something like
==Non dramatic adaptations==
These could then be used in tandem, or seperately with no lose of meaning. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I saw discussion about changing category:~year~ books to category:~year~ novel. Can the template be updated to reflect this? PeregrineV 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The use of a slash in "allusions/references" in several of the headings is unattractive. Why not use words instead of punctuation to convey the point: "allusions and references", or just one or the other where appropriate? — Michael Z. 2006-10-03 18:45 Z
An argument has been made in Talk:To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Cleaning up the article that this template's single-sentence lede is too short and should include the content the template currently partitions into the plot introduction section. -- Meyer 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose a new template. There are several significant flaws with this one.
Where schorlarly source don't exist this leaves most popular culture out to dry. This is an issue for the wider wikipedia cummunity to determine is this "PC" material can be included. As long as the references can be verifiable then the "Release details" could stand. I would entirely agree if you were saying that the editions should major on the "first, earliest and major" to avoid the advert based references. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Having said all that I have I am not trying to be obstructive and I do think this debate is important enough to alert more peoples attention to it. Thank you for raising these issues and I believe we should let this debate run for quite some time so we can get a number of responses and get the best possible result. Which I'm sure is the main aim here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added the debate to our project announcements template, and will include it in our monthly newsletter - due out in just over a week. There may be other opportunities though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I support Awadewit's revised template. The idea that every novel should have all the current template's sections (such as "Explanation of the novel's title," "Allusions/references to actual history, geography and current science," or "Release details") is irritating. If an editor decides that an article should have these sections, fine. But the template should be a bare-bones road map to making a very good novel article. If a novel warrants having more sections, then so be it. But don't leave editors with the impression that every novel article must have a "Release details" or an "Explanation of the novel's title." Best, -- Alabamaboy 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the above template changes.I disagree with making the novel template leaner. I would much rather have the template "guide" me with a ton of subsections, which I, as the editor at that time, can include or omit. I also prefer the plain English version of the current template, as perhaps some novels may not have had a "literary analysis" done on them, or may not have a “historical context”. “Reception & legacy” would be included under “literary significance”.
I can understand the desire to make the novel articles more scholarly, but I don’t see it as feasible. Wikipedia is not a scholarly work, it’s a reference source, with millions(?) of individual contributors, and all it entails. I’d much rather leave the professional dissection of novels to the professionals. As a part-time contributor, a fully fleshed template full of helpful hints works much better for me. PeregrineV 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
A "fully fleshed" template may sound like a good idea, but the problem with it is a) who's going to develop it?; b) no matter how complete the template is, it leaves things out and worse, forces you to put things in categories where they don't belong. Also, as a scholar I rely on Wikipedia's novel articles more than the general public, I would be willing to wager. I used the Uncle Tom's Cabin article to help me study for my comprehensive exams. Because of the importance of the novel articles to me, I am particularly interested in developing a new template. And as an editor of novel articles, it has become abundantly clear that the novel template as it currently stands is oriented toward the following things: allusiveness of a literary work, plot, and character. If you look at other encyclopedias for the types of things they include/exclude, plot and character drop away, as does allusiveness. The types of things that encyclopedias are good at recording and elaborating on are: historical context of the work and author; popular and scholarly criticism and reception; and stylistics/thematics. I think we need to have a debate on a new template, and I think the ones proposed above are a good starting place. Victorianist 00:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've redone Kusma's edit which has the effect of removing bad advice on spoilers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this means amongst other things that important plot elements may have to be dealt with in the lead. For instance the lead of an article about Brave New World should probably mention the Savage's failure to integrate with the culture of his mother, and his eventual suicide. It most definitely is not in order to recommend that spoilers should be confined to as single section marked with a warning tag. -- Tony Sidaway 14:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This template seems to be encouraging the creation of trivia sections, listing them as a key part of a novel-article's structure. Do we want that? I thought we were trying to phase them out by incorporating relevant information into the rest of the article and eliminating the rest. -- Aquillion 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Has this been fixed up so someone can start a new page by just substing the template into their new article page? Would suggest that be an option for all project templates, and the usage can be gotten out of the way following the WP:DPP guideline. Noincludes don't come along on subst operations, so should be fairly simple. The current pre block goes to the /doc page, etcetera. If that's not clear, get a hold of me! // Fra nkB 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to seriously think about the "Sources, references, external links, quotations" section as quotations seem awfully close to Trivia. Quotations don't seem necessary. I think if an article will include quotations, it should include them as part of a discussion about the novel: for instance, a scholar's take on a particular quotation, or a quotation that seems to tell us something about the novel. See the quotation I included from the opening chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five in a recent edit. It seems clear that the quotation is serving a larger point in the article. Unless someone can justify the quotations section, I think it should be deleted. Victorianist 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a blank infobox template on the page, so we can cut and paste without having to erase every line of instruction? (Like the Template:Infobox_Writer page has.) What's the best way to do it -- post it inside NoWiki markers? Aristophanes68 ( talk) 18:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I'm just passing thru, but it seems to me that the template ought to inlcude links to source text, where they exist? eg. the project gutenberg (or other) etext? (and, while I'm at it, i'll put a pitch in for links to the free/public domain librivox audio recordings too, but i'll recuse myself from that question, as i am a volunteer there). Mackinaw ( talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For some categories of novel, notably genre mysteries, a character list can be highly appropriate and should precede the plot summary. It was fairly common for genre mysteries published in the 1930s and 1940s to include a character list before the beginning of the narrative.
In many other mysteries, an early passage in the narrative is little more than a catalog of characters, so that the reader has a list of suspects and witnesses in hand.
Putting this list in an explicit section section may offend some purists, but it offends me to interrupt narrative text for what is de facto a bulleted list, and which is far easier to compose as such than as narrative text. -- Rich Rostrom ( Talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I notice that "~Stub notice, if necessary~" appears before the categories. Stub tags should go after categories, so that the stub categories are listed last - see Wikipedia:Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub. PamD ( talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've boldly rearranged this template to more closely match what is actually being seen in novel FAs and GAs over the last year or so, removing a lot of excessive sections, the double plot section, and rearranging others. If you disagree, let's discuss. I also cleaned up the instructions some. One thing I did not address was the need for alt text in the infobox, which should be handled by the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that since this page has been redone, the 'Character List' section was removed. As I remember it, it was considered optional, as long as it was well written. I never really was a fan of character lists, but I would like some clarification as to whether a character list is now discouraged from being in an article, whether it is up to the editor, or what. 74.95.169.158 ( talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am finding difficulty putting The Shobies' Story , a novella, into either the Novel Infobox because it is not an independent book, or the Short Story Infobox template because that infobox is precoded to put double quotes around the name. Can someone create a novella infobox to use, or perhaps enlighten me if novellas or novelettes should go in double quotes? I would just classify it as a short story since the dividing line between a short story and a novella is probably subject to debate, but this work has won awards specifically for the novella. Cheers -- Npd2983 ( talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_14#December_14 that I nominated Template:Skeleton novel fro deletion. Debresser ( talk) 19:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that a publication history is relevant before a critical response or analysis or major themes section? It seems to me that showing when the work was first published should come before anyone has a chance to offer analysis or response. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 13:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Wikipedians! I've noticed a number of articles that contain elaborate plot summaries which are completely unsourced. Example: Seventeen by Booth Tarkington and Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana. Shouldn't the plot summary (which the article template calls for) be supported by citations to reliable secondary sources? If none are readily available, one could use a brief summary of the publisher's plot summary and cite the publisher's website. Thoughts? Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) BuzzWeiser196 ( talk) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Should the article template reflect this?
In case it's helpful, the following is a quote from Template:Infobox book/doc:
- published
- Alternate parameter, using the following composite format: year (publisher) (language, when originally written in a foreign language); use {{ plainlist}} when there is more than one notable edition
- Note:
|published=
is acceptable, but no longer preferred to|publisher=
and|pub_date=
, which have been restored to common usage.
– spida-tarbell ❀ ( talk) ( contribs) 22:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)