Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 10

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

→

Brideshead Revisited needs cites

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)

Baen Books DOI's

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.

The Template:Baen DOI

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! // FrankB 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Book covers with disputed fair use rationales

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)

Kudos to Bláthnaid and others for taking on this rather thankless task. I have given Bláthnaid (and anyone else) permission to to delete bot warnings from my talk page once they've dealt with them, and I recommend others give similar permission. I don't think we need to flood these folks with permission messages: I have simply posted a "permission given" message at the top and bottom of my talk page, which hopefully is good enough. Alternately, editors who deal with the images could add a "Resolved" note to the bot messages and then the talk page owner can delete or archive the messages as desired. Although deleting warnings and correspondence from talk pages is frowned upon, I am unaware of any prohibition regarding bot messages, especially ones of this repetitive and non-disciplinary nature. 23skidoo (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone would have problems with the "fixer" adding a {{resolved|1=~~~~}} after having made the necessary changes. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

19th-century novels task force

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)

probably overdue. Any help you need let me know. If can gain some support prior to launch so much the better. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything in particular...

... 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)

All you need to do is go to the Members sub-page (the link can be found in the box at top right) and add your name to the list as instructed. Welcome aboard! 23skidoo (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Katie1971 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Watership Down by Richard Adams

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)

I think the similarities are just because both are named after Watership Down, Hampshire which apparently does have a lot of rabbits. --JayHenry (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Interlopers needs its image back

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)

Some images were accidentally deleted by an admin trying to deal with the huge backlog. The image will be undeleted soon :-) Bláthnaid 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's back. Apologies for the mix-up. Bláthnaid 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your efforts. Considering how many thousands of images have been flagged in the last few weeks, I didn't really see this as a mix-up more than a case of one falling through the cracks. Although I had contributed many of the book covers for the Matt Helm series, I don't recall if Interlopers was one of them, as many were contributed by another user who left Wikipedia over many of the same issues that I have expressed frustration about. 23skidoo (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put all the Matt Helm books on my watchlist, so you don't have to worry about their images being deleted. Bláthnaid 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD challenge page needs attention - new nomination today

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)

The Delivery Man appears to be a first novel. Devil May Care is by a very well established award-winning novelist, with many notable works, and about which there are important published sources even prior to publication. DGG (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also "important published sources even prior to publication" now applies to The Delivery Man and it is now published. Film rights being sold with numerous reviews, most on balance positive suggest certain rising notability. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I might not have made my point clear. The attempted precedent here is trying to establish that any novel not yet published is NN, even if reviews, etc. exist. That's my concern. In my opinion this particular novel meets notability requirements based upon its publisher alone, first novel or no. But my concern was if the precedent that yet-to-be-published novels are NN was set, then that would make it difficult to sustain articles on upcoming books, regardless who the author was. 23skidoo (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My view would be that not yet published would be naturally "less notable", however the notability rises commensurate with the notability of the author responsible. So a debut novel from a "new author" (i.e. one not notable for anything else) would be harder to establish / determine. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it goes both ways, too. If this were 1938 we might have seen the same argument being made regarding a book called Gone With the Wind. Since Wikipedia guidelines and policies change with the weather these days, perhaps this no longer applies, but my understanding from reading past Wikipedia guidelines is that books and novels are considered inherently notable so long as they aren't self-published and have wide distribution, in which case the Grove Press connection is sufficient. Perhaps the rules have changed. Now, if this were a debate over whether the author warrants an article, then that's a different thing, although being published by an international publisher would seem to satisfy that, too. 23skidoo (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Has Anyone Heard...

... 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)

It looks like it was a short story that was published on its own. Look here. It also passes the google test and looks like it definitely "exists". It should not be removed from the author's bibliography.

such an inquiry can go here. Added citation to the works list. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK cool! Thanks for finding that out for me. - I had googled for it but not found anything! Thanks again Katie1971 (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging bios of allegedly NN authors with an article on their work

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)

Extraordinarily bad idea! If published in such a way the author is surely notable enough for such an on-line "non-paper" encyclopedia. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not going to cry bad faith or anything, but I am starting to get a little suspicious over what I'm starting to interpret as a vendetta against this particular novelist, given the AFD and now someone is trying to wipe his article out. Then again, I know creating articles is going to be getting more difficult around here before long, especially if things like restrictions on TV episode articles, for example, actually come into effect. Imagine having to merge all of a particular author's books into one article simply because no one has written a "secondary source" about something like The Saint to the Rescue. 23skidoo (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Catch 22

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

DYK -- Nausea

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)

A note about image deletions

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)

And so it begins. I've just had my Talk Page spammed into uselessness by BetacommandBot. If it were anyone else I'd have permabanned him by now. I'm tempted. 23skidoo (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. I've given up re-editing all the images I uploaded, often a long time ago, just to repeatedly rephrase the fair use rationale or change the template or whatever. I wonder if Wikipedia has ever been seriously threatened with a lawsuit so that that particular procedure (as descibed above) is justified. <KF> 12:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  - No one has ever given me a straight answer on that, and I've asked repeatedly. It's probably a CYA (cover your a--) thing, but my personal belief is that no one cares about 99% of the images being used on websites, especially sites like this. If they did, then we'd have seen hundreds if not thousands of fan sites, forums, blogs, and even news sites lose their images or get sued by now. The only people who seem to care are porn producers or related publications such as Playboy. They often go after sites that post their material without permission or payment, and even then they tend to just usually send a "take this down" order. This is different from WP:BLP, a policy I wholly support, which is intended to help reduce the number of incidents where people's lives have actually been affected by Wikipedia postings, like the well-publicized case of the guy a Wiki vandal linked to the JFK assassination, or some of the attack articles that have been created. That's different. I can't imagine anyone on this planet who would be negatively impacted because we posted the cover art for The Saint on the Spanish Main without including a "proper" rationale template. 23skidoo (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Westeros

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)

I've no objections, but having looked at the article, I don't think it'll go far. There is currently a movement on Wikipedia to basically eliminate articles on fictional topics (characters, worlds, spaceships) without significant "real world" notability and secondary sourcing. Meaning you pretty much need to find a bunch of notable sources indicating that Westros has been the subject of study or widespread public knowledge and study (i.e. Middle Earth). The way the article is right now, it's simply a history of a fictional land. It will, I believe, be difficult for the article to be even considered for GA given its current state and the current political situation (for lack of a better term) on Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I might not be quite as skeptical about the prospects as 23skidoo above he does make some good points. verifiability and non Original research are everything here. This article smacks of WP:OR throughout. It needs plenty of work to make it acceptable to GA. By all means go for it don't let us put you off. One other thing the Map although nice, might by copyright and also doesn't give much information at the scale it is. Numbers of smaller sections for the detail might be better. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't planning on submitting it. I've never even edited the article. I just thought I'd see if anyone wanted to, after seeing it and thinking it would pass GA status. Apparently it wouldn't. Ah well. Almighty Clam 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I should be clear that I don't think it's impossible for this article to get to GA or FA. It just needs a major amount of work to reduce the OR and in-world content and bring it in line with the current standards. I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from trying. But submitting it as-is wouldn't work. But if there are people with the knowledge (and sources) to expand this article, I say go for it. (Definitely sources: I saw one article get FA -- I wish I could remember what it was, but the list of references was almost as long as the article itself!) 23skidoo (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

See debate on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Book_reviews. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all I'm new here !

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)

"The Clique Series" Task Force

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)

Laudable aims and we will aim to give as much help here as we can. And yes (too right) it is a narrow field. I doubt if you will get too much support for a WikiProject or even a task force. These are meant for truly major fields of interest and likely to sustain interest over time. Even the most well thought out projects etc often fail to maintain that. Having said all that, do raise you concerns here and we will see what we can do to assist. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is enough support I'm happy for one to exist here and be supported by the project. Just my caution was over the speciality of the interest and the level of initial and ongoing support. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for a Clique Task Force and will happily be the first person to sign up! :-) For An Angel (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another AFD-based precedent potential

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)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature

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)

Studying Literature

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)

To answer this, we include all fiction narrative prose. If it is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, it is notable enough for us to be interested in it. Bera in mind there are at least two major definitions of "Novels" (one that relates to "higher" literature and one which relates to all longer narrative fiction). We have extended our interest to short material (without changing the project title). Hope that help understand the project scope a bit, any questions please ask. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But just because it is on wikipedia, doesn't mean that it is good enough. Take Jane Austen's Edgar and Emma short story, that is the worst terrible piece of fiction that i have ever read in my entire life, and others will agree with me, but it is considered literature because all of what Jane Austen wrote is considered literature, and that is wrong, i would group Jane Austen's works into the category of pulp fiction of 200 years ago, read pride and predjudice, it is terrible, worse than terrible in fact, i would say that edgar and emma is better, and that is worse than bad is bad. DangerTM (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Good" is a subjective term that we, as part of the Wikiproject and throughout Wikipedia, should never use to measure an article's worth. Notability is something with which we can judge whether or not an article has a right to exist and therefore be included under a particular Wikiproject, but just because you or I dislike a book does not make it any less literary. Pride and Prejudice and Emma, to use your examples, are literary classics and that cannot be disputed, unfortunately for some of us. :) Or, take The Last of the Mohicans, thought even when it was first published to be a truly horrid book; sometimes works become notable literature for reasons other than its sub par writing or predicable ending. It could be the first of its kind (LotM = one of the first American novels) or perhaps even a quintessential example of its genre (Emma = comic novel). María (habla conmigo) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"just because it is on wikipedia". As María says is all about notability, nothing about quality. In fact as I said earlier, "novels" can have different meanings, so can "literature". Literature can mean "high literature" a qualitative statement or it can refer to all types of written material in a certain field. (e.g. "it can be found in the sociological literature"). There are other meanings as well. If the output of notable authors of notable works are to be qualitatively commented on then the articles themselves should reflect this, but only from third part verifiable sources. We are to document the "literature" of a subject not to create it. (see WP:Notability, WP:Verifiable, WP:No original research for basic Wikipedia discussion of many of these issues. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, in order to declare something as "literature" or "good enough" for Wikipedia requires us to violate WP:NPOV. At that point the conversation ends. 23skidoo (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The negative version of this is similarly true. What if the work is "not good enough"? Also point of view. Notability is the test. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am merely asking if we should classify it as literature or as a text, it is not based upon how good the book is, it is based upon its merit in today's society. It is based upon how it affected the culture in which it was written in, and us deciding the class of the article (stub, start, b, etc) is no different from this, just add a thing to the template and some criteria, the only main difference is that it cannot change, ever. Maybe there should be a client project or a task force that is related to this, and we only take on tasks that are related to literature not novels, that is, books that have received enough merit from the community (not just wikipedia, but the whole community) that they can be classified as literature, and the definition of how we classify literature would be the accepted definition by oxford university. DangerTM (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Class" of the article (i.e. stub, start, B etc) relates to quality of the article and does not say anything about the subject of the article. "Importance" (or "Priority" in some wikiprojects) relates to the subjects relative notability which will include factors like the works impact on society (or sub-section of society). When you use terms like literature you need to be very careful that everyone in the conversation is working with the same definition, it may just be easier to avoid it, or to qualify meaning constantly. If what you are saying is that some further statement of literary merit is needed that my be needed. We would need to discuss how that might best be achieved. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, we would use the Oxford dictionary definition, which is: n. Literary production (engaged in literature) writings whose value lies in beauty of form or emotional effect; the books etc treatment of a subject. DangerTM (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the OED to hand but just from what you have posted the definition appears to have included a few different shades of meaning even in these few words. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that is the main problem with trying to classify literature, which is why I move to use the OED definition as a base, but discuss the true definition within this discussion, it wouldn't be new research, it would just be a discussed and agreed apon, which is why a governing body would help. DangerTM (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Having search the OED online myself, I would like to point out that DangerTMhave cited. the definition out of context in order to bend the evidence to fit his argument. The full citation of this definition of literature is as follows: "3. a. Literary productions as a whole; the body of writings produced in a particular country or period, or in the world in general. Now also in a more restricted sense, applied to writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect. light literature: see LIGHT a.1 19. This sense is of very recent emergence both in Eng. and Fr." --chemica (talk) 21:55, 7 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 conmigo) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fiction is more of a sweeping statement than literature, literature only represents a select bunch of novels and works. And since Origin of species does not represent fact but theory, it is somewhere in the grey area of fiction and non-fiction.DangerTM (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying is true in many cases, but this is not the Literature WikiProject, it is the Novels WikiProject. As such, it encompasses all novel articles on wikipedia, whether those novels are brilliant or terrible. Wrad (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

literature only represents a select bunch of novels and works... no, it doesn't, and that is my point. Most of anything can be considered literature; that is not the case with fiction. What is not fiction, but is in book form, falls under WikiProject Books. What you seem to be looking for is a quality-based version of WP:LIT. WikiProject Novels deals with all novels and short fiction, regardless of whether one person may subjectively consider it "literature" or not. María (habla conmigo) 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are quite wrong, books can be anything in book form, but literature is of a different caliber, it has to be of literary merit, so some piece of pulp fiction could not be classified as literature, but as pulp fiction. There should be a task force or a sister project relating to literature specifically rather than books. And no, it wouldn't be a quality based version of WP:LIT, I have said it many times, it is not how good a book or novel is, it is how much merit the book has, how it represents the culture and values of the context in which it was written. It is a whole lot more than just "How good a book is" an in pulp fiction, it can be incredible, thrilling, brilliant, but it will still be pulp fiction, how ever you paint it. DangerTM (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But this project isn't about books either -- there's a Book Project for that. This project is simply about a genre: fiction. Plus, you're ignoring the fact that literature is not defined as works of merit, but simply as anything written down. Second, even pulp fiction is gaining a lot of attention in literary scholarship -- so it passes the notability test. What you're really arguing is for "High Art" in the most restrictive (and perhaps outdated) sense. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Danger, I've felt the same way at times, and have tried to start a medieval literature task force for that time period. I've wondered if it might be wise to have some sort of project focusing on the classic literary canon. the problem is, the canon is disintegrating, and the definition of literature is becoming blurry. Everyone is going to have a different idea of what literature is depending on their perspective. According to the Oxford English dictionary, literature is nothing more than a body of written works related by subject-matter, by language or place of origin, or by dominant cultural standards. It just isn't a simple as you think. Back in the 1960s scholars generally agreed on what was good literature and what wasn't, but they don't anymore. I'd encourage you to join relevant wikiprojects and work on those articles which you consider to be about good literature. You're going up against a brick wall if you're asking this wikiproject to change. Wrad (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Danger, according to the OED online, your definition of literature is a restricted version of a much broader definition, viz., 3. a. Literary productions as a whole; the body of writings produced in a particular country or period, or in the world in general. Now also in a more restricted sense, applied to writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true. You and many others may think it's sad, but it is still true. Literature doesn't mean what it used to. Wrad (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, to look at it from my perspective, literary merit is no longer assessed solely according to the standards of wealthy white men.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also a legitimate view. Wrad (talk) 05:15, 7 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)

That's exactly the point, though. That is an old, outdated definition. Literature is now, in many cases, just books. Anything written. And that's according to the most current Oxford definition. The world has changed. Wrad (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Danger, why don't you start a task force to focus on Great Books. As I understand it, the Novels Project is open to all notable fiction. It's simply not set up to consider quality. Besides, your argument was already defeated in the USA around 1990.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd join it. Wrad (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, tell me how to start the task force and I will join it, but it still comes back to the entire basis of the argument, who decides what is great? DangerTM (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Task Forces I will not be joining, as in the literary traditions I study, beauty and emotion are less important than didactic and social value, i.e., literature is not meant to move us, but to empower us. Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Literature is meant to do all of those things, it could move us and still be crap, even though it is moving. DangerTM (talk) 07:54, 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 might be what you used, and others might as well; but there are other definitions and it is not the most commonly used understanding based on the trends I see expressed above. Even if we worked with your "limited", "specialist" or "literary" definition it wouldn't affect the majority of what we do here bcause as a definition is isn't the focus of our activity. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the literary definition, and maybe we should get to the root of the problem and ask, Why is it defined in this way?DangerTM (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. We cannot and should not group works together because of subjective definitions, going so far as to declare what has merit and what doesn't -- I for one want no business in supporting a taskforce that would omit Jane Austen's work simply because one user says it's without merit. This is frankly opening up a can of worms and would lead to endless philosophical discussions about individual texts' "beauty of form" or what have you; we have no business doing that. The only way this WikiProject can remain NPOV is to create and utilize taskforces that group works by genre, something that is easily definable, not one person's ideas of quality. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Danger, it is not the literary definition, it is simply a literary definition--and one that lost currency about 20 years ago. There has been a shift away from the study of the aesthetic and affective quality of a text to reclaim the older criteria of mimetic and didactic power, what might be considered more content-oriented analysis. (And I for one am less interested in a book's aesthetic quality than in its historical importance--especially for social groups that have to struggle to be accepted as writers.) This project, as I understand it, is focused quite simply on the historical aspect of literary production--which books have been notable, for whatever reasons. I assume it is perfectly acceptable to include in every article a discussion of the work's critical reception, pointing out (e.g.) that Austen's short story is not considered indicative of her talents, etc. But the assessment of quality MUST be done from a NPOV. So, this is your chance to dig into the critical scholarship and use that information to inform the articles you want to work on. I think we could all be happy with that procedure? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How long ago did you graduate? I'm a current undergrad and the definition is currently much more diverse than that. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Who? Me, or Danger? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

DangerTM. Sorry, this sequence is getting confusing. Wrad (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that DangerTM received his degree in that days when all literature departments (English or otherwise) were dominated by a sense that the literature defined as canonical are the only texts worthy of study. The goal of Wikipedia is not aesthetic analysis of the works in question. The novel articles are meant to present readers with an understanding of why people have found this texts to be important works. Like Kevinalewis said, if we begin to give personal value judgments about the works we are in violation of NPOV. --chemica (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume that it's fine to discuss critical reaction to individual works? Would that be an acceptable way to address questions of literary merit while staying within the NPOV requirements? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Criticism and analysis isn't just ok, it's a must! As long as there are sources to back it up. I assume Chemica means saying things like "this is a truly beautiful work worthy of being referred to as 'literature'". Wrad (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Jane Austen's work didn't have merit, I just don't like it because I am from a different generation, I think that it really shows the culture and values of early 19th century England, which doesn't stop me from hating her work more than anything, but still...DangerTM (talk) 23:53, 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)

What does this have to do with the Novels WikiProject on Wikipedia? Wrad (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a thing. Enough navel gazing, back to work, nothing to see here... María (habla conmigo) 05:07, 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)

You may be able to generate a more conclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, which is probably a more appropriate forum for discussing "literature". Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DangerTM is right. Horton Hears A Who! isn't even a novel! And this is the whole : What Is Literature? For me, literature is something enjoyable. I found the Buffy novels real enjoyable. Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban took my mind. Also, I only read some classic novels and BAM! dead boring. But, just my opinion. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Danger, I find your concerns uninteresting at best and outdated at worst. Plus, they are outside the scope of this Project. However, if you take my suggestion to explore the critical reception of the works posted in the project and to add that information to the cite in the form of scholarly references, then I would be more interested. I look forward to seeing your contributions in this area. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, wait. I think he's telling the truth. We're all referring to literature-novels as ALL BOOKS. Actually there are a few classes of books for me:

Classical
Modern
Children's
Fantasy

And many more! You guys are referring, in a sense, to all books. Danger got the idea that there are many different classifications of books, and many more sub-classifications. We are defining literature by means of our own mind. I would define literature as a general subject of every single book. Focusing on one class would be BORING, but focusing on others would be a little more different. The explanation in a nutshell: We cannot define literature. This is only my opinion. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Literature is not a genre, but the things that you just listed were, literature does have a set meaning, it is like the colour blue, when we hear the word blue, we thinks blue, nothing else, it is the same with literature, we should hear the word literature and think of books that speak to the soul and electrify us. Not just books that exist for the sole purpose to sell themselves, which is what some books do. Some books are to be tasted, others to be smelled, and some few, to be chewed and swallowed. DangerTM (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting choice of comparison, do you see the same blue as I see, who knows. Deep philosophical and scientific issue there. Perhaps a more suitable comparison might be "art" which has a set meaning, but it has 10 separate meanings in my small pocket dictionary alone. Literature as a word has the same issues. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be an interesting comparison, but it's still irrelevant to a project whose goal is to catalog all notable works of fiction. I still say that Danger's best approach is to add to each page relevant information regarding the work's critical reception. That way he can explore the topic he loves, add usable information to the site, and still remain NPOV. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:47, 10 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)

One last time: "literature", however you or I may define it, is not what this WikiProject is for. Therefore, there is no reason to define it or set parameters. Read Terry Eagleton's "What is Literature?", the introduction to Literary Theory: An Introduction if you are personally interested in the subject. María (habla conmigo) 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly been one long conversation. We should culminate at this point, to let others who do not want to read the whole meeting of minds. I posted an idea and many people have responded. It has certainly been a stimulating discussion. But literature and Novels walk hand in hand, like husband and wife, so to say that literature doesn't fall underneath the umbrella of this project is just wrong. One cannot read a book without being affected in some way. I want every single person affiliated with this dicussion to read one book, a book that has been widely accepted as literature, and to comment on it on my talk page. This could range from a whole myriad of books. Of Mice and Men, Crime and Punishment, Dracula, The Scarlet Pimpernel. Literature is a part of this project, whether conciously or sub-conciously. We read to know, to experience, if we don't read books for those things, then we aren't even digesting the whole point of life. We want to understand a time period. Crime and Punishment gives a better representation of a down and out living in the slums of St Petersburg better than a history book ever could, it gives the feeling, rather than just the facts. DangerTM (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Election

Resolved

– We agree, an election will be held next month

An election will be held in the month of april, look over the candidates by clicking on this link

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'm certainly all for this. If the interest can be gained - it may help engender more project "ownership" from our member editors. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the idea if such a board of directors might actually have some influence with the Wikipedia community at large on issues such as whether book cover images should be allowed or articles on novels that haven't been the subject of scholarly study. 23skidoo (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, essentially the governing body would cover all issues that are brought to light on their talkpage, which would also be the place where the elections would be held. I would think that it would consist of three members, or maybe a representative from each task force, (short stories etc) and one from the main project. Each task force would conduct a separate election, where they would put forth two candidates to the main election, where the whole project would elect one from each, or three from the whole project, depending on the result of this discussion. DangerTM (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On thing we will need to be clear on is the "role" of this "council". And some of the flavour of this will come from the names used. Unfortunately I don't think we will get that far with what 23skidoo would like to see although as a contributer of image that have been massively binned for little of no good reason, I have loads of sympathy with his views. Back to names I think the name should be things like coordinator or administrator (with maybe "lead" added as a prefix - as WP:MILHIST. These type of name are those that emphasis the cooperative nature of wiki that we are aiming to enhance. As far as powers go they would be entirely subject to the standard wikipedia, rule, policies and other procedures. Wiki administrator and whatever "super administrators" are called still have the real powers. This would be entirely for internal WikiProject Novels promotion, cooperation, encouragement, with some smaller aspects of intraproject arbitration perhaps. Again look at WP:MILHIST for examples of good practice in this type of thing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, except on the front of the title, that should be better phrased, like president or something, not to make it so that the user is segregated from the other editors in the project, but so that people identify that that user has the power, and they should go to that person for help in any regard. But what kind of powers should this council have? That should be another outcome of this discussion.DangerTM (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was in a bit of a grumpy mood when I posted my comment ... but I do feel that such a council should have among its mandates the job of keeping track of these sorts of things. Images are one thing that could be seen as beyond the scope of the project (either they're allowed or they're not, and obviously a lot of different topics use images), however I do feel the council should play a role in any future policy-setting with regards to setting, for example, a notability threshold for novels, because whether I agree that such a threshold should exist or not (my position is a novel published and distributed professionally is inherently notable) the fact remains I'd rather have someone from this project playing a role in making such decisions rather than a disinterested party who might only considier "serious literature" (i.e. Poe, Hemingway, etc) as worthy of Wikipedia. A council would be able to put forward the consensus of Wikiproject members in a more convincing way than an individual editor who might be dismissed on his/her own as inclusionist. 23skidoo (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree, then why are we still discussing, someone post in the news letter that elections will be held to vote in a president and council. If we do that then more people will join so they can become president, a high profile job if you ask me. DangerTM (talk) 04:11, 7 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)

Exactly, the main problem is not to get involvment with an election, it is deciding how the heirachy will be set up, I think that one president, and three other council members who the president answers to would be fine, then the president should choose his cabinet, or the people he or she trusts to help him or her out during the term. DangerTM (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think having the president's whole 'cabinet' that he chooses might be going a bit too far. Do you really think that's necessary? ~ Bella Swan 13:53, 8 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)

I think a scheme a little bit more informal would be in order. These people (council) even if voted for like some form of government will not get past the basic cooperative principles of wikipedia. Three or four (maybe five) sound a good kind of number. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, four is a perfect numberDangerTM (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But that still doesn't enlighten me as to how I would go aboutg setting up an election If anyone knows how to set up an election, contact me on my talk page. DangerTM (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Contacted on talk page as requested. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How to note missing infoboxes?

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)

Really the |need-infobox=yes one although the earlier one has hung around in case people preferred that route. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Groovy -- thanks for the clarification. So should I do some minor editing on the various Talk Pages to ensure that the information is consistent throughout the site? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Me again) -- For instance, what about this page, which seems ready for deletion? Novels Without Infobox Ditto Infobox Needed Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right what I think we should do is finish working on the articles listed on these pages and also the Infobox Incomplete and Novels with InComplete Infobox pages and then drop references to them from the other pages and navigation template. The automated list idea worked very well when we have an editor who's Bot was capable of generating them (very helpful) but they just dropped off the radar. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

David Alexander (author) article up for AFD

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)

I have to say the article as it stands looks more like self-promotion than a neutral biography of an established author. Deb (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, but that's a content issue and an editor with time (which unfortunately I don't have this morning) could revise the article to bring it up to standards. As I say it needs to be wikified, but the fact this guy has books published by the likes of Avon and Berkeley pushes him into another league than someone who self-publishes or only works with small press. 23skidoo (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it was not responsible for the original editor to write a article on an author without doing at least the work of finding reviews of his books. If he's worth writing about, they will be findable. I know it wasnt you who wrote it. From the history, it looks like it may have been a PR firm. My inclination is not to help them at it, but to let their client find out they didnt do it well enough to earn their money. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't explored the origin of the article, but I've always understood that articles are collaborative works. I could start an article consisting of the words "David Alexander wrote X, Y and Z", slap a stub tag and category on it, and essentially my job is finished. Yes, I could and should add more, but the nature of Wikipedia is others are supposed to jump in and improve and expand and article. So I don't really care if a PR firm created the article. It's up to the community to bring it up to standard, and regardless of the content of the article, it states that he has notable publications, so the article should stay and be improved by the community if the originators have abandoned it. This isn't the first time a viable article has been started by someone cut-and-pasting a biography blurb from somewhere and then others whipped it into shape. 23skidoo (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe wait and see if anyone else jumps in to expand it? That would suggest that he's got SOME level of notability :lol: Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MELUS, anyone?

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")

Good idea - although bear in mind the notability issues involved though. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying -- I've been adding to the Lists pages authors who have been mentioned in scholarly bibliographies and trying to note awards and critical studies as much as I can. Would that be sufficient? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Election Open - Candidate entry (Open) - Voting in April (Not Yet)

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)

Deletion of plot summaries

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)

New Category?

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)

There is a Wiki policy about over-categorization...and a 11th C novel cat is over-categorization! How many 11th C novels are there? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And we also don't have Category:12th century novels, Category:13th century novels, or even Category:14th century novels yet which one would imagine "simplistically might come first. Nice thinking, but we can go too far with these things. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the over-categorization idea, but I did see a list with 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th century novels (there was one 15th). That's why I thought, "Well, the Tale of Genji is missing--the first novel. Why should this other 15th Century book register as #1?"Jacqke (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the categories don't exist; someone just put them on the list.Jacqke (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Why should this other 15th Century book register as #1?" - sorry I don't understand the question. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:33, 13 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)

Would a Category:Pre 15th century novels answer, it is little more specific in name. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Is there anything in the "history of the novel" article/section that could be used to explain the grouping on the Category page? You know, make it a teaching moment and all that.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
update: the Novel page has a section "Early Novel 1000-1600" -- perhaps our category should match up with that heading? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See what you mean we also have a "Romance, 1000-1500" section which fits the period better and on the other side a Category:15th century novels already exists. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But that category has only one page listed -- why not change the category title and then add the appropriate books to the newly renamed category? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite true, it has one article and two subcategories. which follows the scheme for later years. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem

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.

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)

Thanks for creating the articles. Just so you know, though, you don't need to seek permission to add them to the Wikiproject. You can go ahead and add the banner code anytime. 23skidoo (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Novels by" as Category?

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)

"Rampant" is a strong word; I don't think this can be correctly described as category misuse or even a wasted effort. If we were to use your logic, then there shouldn't be categories for singular years, like Category:1954 novels, because they may be linked to at 1954 in literature. This is not always the case, just like how an individual novelist's article may not link to every article dedicated to particular novels they have written. The categories are there to cover all bases as well as provide a means of automatic detection and classification such as for bots or those with installed clean-up tools. It helps, trust me. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Rampant" would be the wrong word: I'd say this is "standard practice" with articles on novels. WP:CLN describes how categories, lists and navboxes can complement each other, and describes such usage as "synergistic" rather than "redundant".

In the present context, users can search for novels by an author using several methods:

Find a "List of works" section or article for the author;
Starting from an article of one novel, access the "Novels by author" category to find other novels; or
Through navbox links (if there is a navbox).

It is generally up to individual editors and users to decide which method they prefer, but as I understand it these methods are not meant to be mutually exclusive.

If there is anything we've neglected to consider, please let us know. Otherwise, considering that the use of "Novels by author" categories is well established, and that there is at least one guideline supporting this usage, these categories will likely remain as they are. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:20, 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)

Category:~year~ novels

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)

I've always thought the "first" publication year the preferred. I do think the example you give is not the most common though, but significant enough for having this discussion. Certainly some of the more significant and historic novels were published in serial form to start with. Only a proportion of these would have run across two or more years. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come across this in several articles on which I've worked. I've always used the year in which it first appeared as a complete novel/book assuming that complete novel/book is its most important format. So, with the World of Null-A, it seems to me that it's primarily a novel, and wasn't really a novel until 1948. Also, in the world of publishing, this would be considered its year. So that's the convention I use as well. Certainly still note in the text the complete story. I can't think of an example off hand, but can imagine that you might have something that's primarily a serialization that happened to have been later published in novel form. In that case, you'd probably want a "category:19XX serialization". Later editions, even if they're substantially revised, are irrelevant I would think for categorization purposes. --JayHenry (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some interest ideas here, not sure how the year of serialization category would stand, we would need plenty to make such a scheme viable. Although I do completely agree about any later dates, irrelevant. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do like logic of JayHenry's point that when considering a novel the year of its first publication in a book form (as opposed to serialization) is its defining year and, as a result, the year to use for Category:~year~ novels. This is the way to write guidelines, no? Need to fix Martin Chuzzlewit then, btw. But I am quite strongly against the notion that later editions, even if they're substantially revised, are irrelevant for categorization purposes. I don't know how well the novel is known to you, but look at The Magus. This is definitely the case when the revised version is sufficiently important to warrant double year caracterization. Or, once there are proper pages on the parts of In Search of Lost Time, most of them should have several ~year~ novels cats. Of course, not every revised edition of every novel should be categorized but there is a number of quite important novels for which it's the case.Henry Merrivale (talk) 10:53, 18 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)

I agree, but all these examples deal with "first published" and where these were in book form. What about serialized publication (i.e in newspapers or magazines) which is the core question here. Subsequent got mentioned as a side comment and really is a distraction. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the original question posted by Henry Merrivale concerned novels that were serialised before being published in book form, asking whether to categorise novel-related articles by date of serialisation or date of book publication. Central to this discussion would thus be Category:Serialized novels. Where the two publication dates differ, articles have been categorised by date in different ways: The Green Mile (novel) is categorised by date of serialisation; Heart of Darkness is categorised by date of first publication in book format; Madame Bovary is categorised by both serialisation date and book publication date. But since many novels in this category were serialised and published in book form in the same year, it is difficult to find a single, predominant categorisation trend. We appear to be at total liberty to develop a guideline ourselves.

It seems to be the consensus that first editions of novels are preferred over subsequent editions, for the purpose of categorisation by date (with a possible exception for extremely notable subsequent revisions). If a fictional narrative work is presently considered a novel, is there any reason why the related article can't be categorised by first publication in any form? Novels have been published in different forms over the years, including serialisation, multiple-volume book sets and single-volume books. I don't believe that any of these forms is intrinsically more, or less, valid than the others, even if one is more popular now. For the purpose of categorisation by year, as long as the work is presently considered a novel, I think that we shouldn't have to consider in what form the novel was initially published – only the year in which the novel first appeared. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't my intent to tangent - the point I was trying to make is the year category is, and probably should, apply to book publication only, and not refer to serialization. For one thing, it is sometimes a challenge to track down the actual first dates of publication -- check out the at-times-complex publication history of stories in the James Bond and Simon Templar series. Actually, Bond is a good example because some of the novels were serialized in places like Argosy before seeing print (thinking here of The Spy Who Loved Me specifically). Also, there's also the cases where serializations straddle more than one year, which might result in some over-categorization. In answer to Liveste's comment above, if I were in charge and had to make a decision, I would say to choose the year in which the work was first published in complete form and not piecemeal. What that mean is I would prefer the year that Great Expectations first was published in a complete form (albeit it probably printed in more than one book - Vol. 1, Vol. 2 - that's more a necessity of the printing technology of the time) then trying to work out the dates when it first appeared as a serial. 23skidoo (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Where to put the current collaboration template

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)

Election Open - Candidate entry (Open)

The Election is still open for candidate entry - please do consider signing up. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited !!?

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)

I've just recently come across the opposite argument on AfD: 'Schools are Inherently notable'. Both position are absurd. I like {Durova (talk · contribs)'s test of notability which is a dead-trees standard: would the subject be listed in a specialist encyclopedia? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't a specialist encyclopedia be MORE likely to include less-notable material? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Notability is the bane of Wikipedia. Both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day are 'only' guidelines. Official policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and I use that in AfD debates. It doesn't help :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Research Study about Wikipedia?

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 did, but I have absolutely no idea whether is is "legit". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is legit. I am the researcher and I just interviewed Yllosubmarine. I'd love to have a chance to speak with you guys.--Survivalism (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for posting here! Your tag line, "Survivalism," looks too much like those auto-generated spam subject lines and I really wasn't sure if it was real! :LOL: I thought, WOW those spam folks are getting REALLY specific now! :LOL: Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:30, 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)

Yes, very straightforward and easy. It was also very interesting and thought provoking, and I'm not even the one doing the research. :) Grad students need all the help they can get, so it's for a good cause. María (habla conmigo) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I take part, too, please? Katie ( Let's talk!! ) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice

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)

That explains the TM -- I thought it was "trademark"!!! =) How do you track down a sock puppet? Through ISP addresses? Thanks for dealing with him! Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This was easy. DangerTM openly identified the master account. In other words, it wasn't secret. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Novel up for AFD

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)

Did my part to defend it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I read through that studying literature discussion above, and it seems that the general concensus that came out of the argument was that notability wasn't what wikipedia is after. Isn't this a direct reference to what danger was saying? He said something along the lines of, and I am paraphrasing here "It is about merit in modern society" then he said something about culture and values, surely this article should be kept. It seems that it is being deleted because it is a stub and because it was written about AIDS, I don't want to make inflamatory claims by calling anyone a homophobe, but that is what I think. I asked my girlfriend just then, and she agreed. Maybe it should be stricken from the deletion thing. Oh, and have you read War and peace? I have, good book, I respect Tolstoy, but I pretty much hated it.WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Different Strokes book is up for deletion because the article doesn't establish its notability, and the awards listed are for the author, not the book. It's not because of the AIDS content. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That certainly does make sense, the article doesn't make it clear what the book is about? Then I guess what I said was wrong. But maybe deletion is too harsh a measure, maybe making it more detailed and longer. Sorry about the implications I made before. I guess when you get the anonymity of the internet, everyone feels free to say what they think, and force what they think. I promise it won't happen again.WilliamMThompson (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Novel articles tagged as non-notable

April 2007

Devta

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

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)

Remove the notability tag...and hope for the best. At least will know which got deleted and can Deletion Review them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was strange to; surely the Gogol stories would be automatically notable just because of their author. What's the general practice on this? Notably by association/authorship? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is still just a proposed guideline. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the talkpage of the guy who tagged the Gogol articles. Here's his explanation:
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)
Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have any Gogol scholarship lying around my house, and I worry if I remove the tag without sources I'd face reprimand. I think it makes Wikipedia look extremely amateurish (or really just idiotic) to question whether the work of Gogol is "notable". But unfortunately the editors who care about "notability" often don't know the difference between Pushkin and Pokemon so here we are. --JayHenry (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing tags! And deleting. I'm up to July 2007, and am leaving a trail of red links. Some of the stuff is blatant adverts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:36, 21 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)

Looking at some of your speedy deletions, I think you are using them wrong. Please read the definition at WP:CSD. A dispute over notability is not an A3. An article about a character that is clearly going to be an unsupportable article is still not an A3. A3 is defined as "No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion." I congratulate you for your initiative, but I strongly urge you to at least tag, not delete in a single step. I think I's support almost all of your deletions on the merits, but most of them should have been done by prod. It has nothing to do with being an inclusionist or not, it has to do with following the right procedure. Let's clean these up, but the 5 days wont matter. DGG (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given up trying to convince people that they're misusing things like the A3. The image-deletionists inspired me to stop contributing images to Wikipedia, and the fact a book pretty much needs to be War and Peace to be considered "notable" around here (by around here I mean Wikipedia as a whole, not the Novels Wikiproject) has made me decide I will no longer create new articles on books. Unless an article is outright bullshit and vandalism, no one should speedy delete anything based upon a published work. 23skidoo (talk) 00:33, 23 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 understand that as your permission to revert you in those cases I think it appropriate after consideration, without your considering it wheel-warring, and I will look at them gradually to that end. DGG (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I went through them as a first pass. If anyone disagrees, then change. Also, I will restore any red-links. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:47, 26 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)

Jay, you probably should have mentioned that the poor Lewis scholar wasn't able to complete his stub because his bad user name got him blocked first, and that he has finally been unblocked and apologized to... (Thank goodness!) Aristophanes68 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Best defence in nearly all these cases is attack. Many of these deletion disputes come about because there is no notability asserted in the article. If we wrote better articles, with these assertions or improved more existing articles but adding these assertions, they would be better intrinsically defended. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's interesting. I didn't realize that the user had been apologized to. Last time I read the page that apology had not been posted. My point though remains that a (arguably) bad user name is not a very good reason to speedily delete an article, and we have a culture that almost goes so far as to encourage ignorance in decision making. This is an example where knowledge of Wikipedia policies, but ignorance of real world subject matter, led to a particular embarrassing chain of events. Ultimately, Kevin is correct. The best defense is always better sources. --JayHenry (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New user

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)

Novels of unclear notability

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)

May I assume that for books with author articles, it is preferable to merge the book page back onto the author page, rather than to delete the article completely?

Comment. This was already done. See above! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Damion|Hi, my name is Damion|Hello, I'm Damion|Hi, I'm Damion

Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I'm glad to join your conmunity, and wish to assit as far as possible.

Welcome aboard, but I strongly recommend that you register an account rather than editing as an anonymous IP. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shannara

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

Support - Project has limited scope and comparatively few members. Integration into this project, and possibly into the project's banner, would probably get the attention of more editors to the articles. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Support---Why not? Considering that I am practically the only contributor, I would like any help. =D the_ed17 02:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Support - per the_ed17. maclean 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)~~

Oppose both the merger to this project and the removal of the earlier merger proposal. The scope of the topic is clearly much broader than simply "Novels". John Carter (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose strongly. I agree with John Carter that this topic is too big to be combined with another, especially Novels since there's more to the Holmes franchise than just books, as it also includes TV, movies, radio, comic books ... 23skidoo (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. OK. I'll re-establish merger to the media project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I strongly oppose that one too. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New task forces

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)

Lemony Snicket task force

Was bold and transformed the inactive project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Completed the transfer. Talk page now redirects here. Other housekeeping stuff done. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronicles of Narnia task force

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)

Completeed the transfer. Talk page now redirects here. Updated the task force page with a 'template table'. The Portal could use some work. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)