Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Books: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:37, 11 October 2009 editRobert Skyhawk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,761 edits →Table of Contents Subpages: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:34, 30 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 19) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Shortcut|WT:BOOK|WT:BOOKS}} {{talk header|sc1=WT:BOOK|sc2=WT:BOOKS}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{MainBold|WikiPedia:WikiProject Novels|WP:NOVELS|WikiPedia:WikiProject Books|WP:BOOKS}}
{{WikiProject Books}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|-
!align="center"|]<br>]
----
|-
|
* ] 2004 - Sept. 2006 (''Topics'': Use of ISBD, Wikireader, recasting the book (related) subcategories, crime book category, Infobox Writer, new fields to book infobox, Books about film)
* ] Sep. 2006 - Dec. 2007 (''Topics'': {{tl|WPBooks}}, Amazon template, List of books by title:0-9, Literature to its own project, Category:Short story templates)
* ] Jan. 2008 - Jan. 2009 (''Topics'': Book title redirects, First Edition Points, Style guide for academic books?, OCLC controversy)
*
|}<!--Template:Talkarchives-->

== Books not found at the LOC ==

What does it mean when a book cannot be found in the LOC catalog, but is known to exist? ] (]) 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
:Perhaps it means even the LOC catalog is not infallible? --] (]) 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::It is also worthwhile to check the British Library's catalogue at http://catalogue.bl.uk and the catalogue of the national library of the country where the book was published. -- ] (]) 04:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

== ] Notability ==

There are currently two discussions on-going about possible changes to the book notability guidelines that may be of interest to project members. The first, ], is a discussion on whether sales figures should be considered as a sign of notability. The second, at ] questions whether the number of times a book is translated should be considered a new criteria of notability. Your input would be valuable here. Thanks. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

== Chinese book series ==

Hi, some input of people knowledgeable on Chinese ] book series would be welcome. I have stumbled upon a complete ] of many articles on novels, novel characters, and objects. Although several of the books appear to be notable (at least, the articles claim multiple film and TV adaptations), I strongly doubt that all these articles are necessary or justified. I have transformed several articles on characters into redirects, but hesitate to continue as I do not want to destroy so much work without being certain that this is justified. Also, some of the articles on the books include long lists of characters. Most of these are redlinked, most of those that are not actually link to existing historical characters with the same name (and are therefore inappropriate links). Most articles contain lists of chapters, but all in Chinese. It all looks to me like a huge amount of cleanup is necessary here. To get you started, here are some of these articles: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Most articles seem to have been created and/or edited by ]. Thanks. --] (]) 13:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

==]==
This article has some serious neutrality issues, and a bit of neutral assistance would certainly be welcome. I'm not really versed on this type of article. ] (]) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:Made some amendments to the citations already there - needs the positive review added though. :: ] : ]/] 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

==Series, and ''serious'' series==

There are over 3500 titles in the series "]". The article is little more than a stub, and is in two categories, "French books" and "]". Thinking that I might find ] (merely a redirect), ], ] and similar stuff in that second category, I clicked on it.

Well, maybe, somewhere within that mess. As an example, the "F" section offers Fabled Lands, Faction Paradox, Fantômas, Fate of the Jedi, Fauna of British India, Fiction Illustrated, Fighting Fantasy, Fire Brats, Five Young American Poets, For Dummies, Foul Football, Foxfire books, Francis Coplan, and Frank Reade. I suppose they're all series, and don't want to knock any of them, but most aren't at all what I had in mind. What I do have in mind is hard to phrase, but categories for series of more than X, Y, or Z titles -- 100, 500, 2500? -- might be one faltering step toward it. Ideas? ] (]) 09:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:The examples you mention "] (merely a redirect), ], ]" are not strictly series they are ] (i.e. publishing brand names) for publishing houses. Some publishers can use these to publish series but that is not quite the same thing. A series would be set of books or novel which have a clear link, at very least a "series title". I know this is a complete treatment of the subject but let the debate start! :: ] : ]/] 11:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Jack the Ripper: The FInal Solution ==

{{FARMessage|Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution}} ] (]) 09:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== Collaboration ==

Hi! I'm trying to get the first ] started, and was wondering if the members of this project would be interested in collaborating on bringing the article, ], up to GA-Class. Any opinions? -] (]) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

== ] and criteria 1 (multiple reviews) ==
There is currently a discussion occurring at ] questioning the validity of the first criteria of ] and proposing changes to remove reviews as a viable indicator of notability. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

==War of the Worlds==
I have been doing a bit of work to improve ] which had been tagged for some time for its lack of sources. There is a long list of adaptions of the novel and another of sequels or prequels at the end of the article. These are useful references for whoever might be interested, but I'm not sure whether they belong in their entirely in the main article page, which I would have thought should primarily focus on the novel and its impact and is starting to get fairly long. I thought it might be worth considering whether these could be moved to another article, and a summary of key works left with main article links. However I am not certain if this is the best option, and if so, what the article should be called to make it useful in Misplaced Pages searches. Could someone with more experience with Misplaced Pages conventions possibly offer some advice on this? ] (]) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:Responded at ]. --] 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

== Coordinators' working group ==
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new ], an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; <small>Delievered by <font color="green">]</font>'''&nbsp;<small>(<font color="red">]</font>)'''</small> on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:I will volunteer to participate on behalf of WP:BOOKS if no one objects. --] 07:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

==Notability/pretension re '']''==
I happened across this article while correcting another; please see my notes at ].] (]) 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

== ] project? taskforce? ==
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project or taskforce to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at ]. Please share your thoughts there! ] (]) 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

==]==

This is a notice to let you know about ''''']''''', a ] subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering ], ], ] and other workflows (]). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found ].

If you are already subscribed to ''Article Alerts'', it is now easier to ] and ]. We are also in the process of implementing a ], which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the <code>display=none</code> parameter, but forget to '''give a link''' to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at ].<!--Addbot-WP-Message-Article-alerts-01-->

<small>Message sent by ] to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome ].</small>

Thanks. — ]&nbsp;{<sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">]</sub>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;]} 08:53, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

== AssessorTags ==

Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, ], which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. {{#ifeq:yes|yes|The banners for this project and its task forces have|The banner for this project has}} have now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found ], and if you have any questions feel free to ask at ]. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. –] (] • ]) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Chapters/sections template ==

A cheap substitute for a synopsis/summary is a list of sections or chapters in a book. When a real synopsis is added, I usually delete such a list. However, I was thinking about this and had the idea of a template which appears to the right, probably hidden by default and just saying 'Chapters' or 'contents', which can be expanded to show the book's chapters. Lists of chapters are somewhat redundant to a good synopsis, but it would be nice if there was a way of keeping them without them featuring very prominently, and this seems to be a good way to do it. Any thoughts on this idea? ] (]) 09:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:Why would an encyclopaedic entry here benefit from a chapter listing? This adds very little to the understanding of the volume and looks extremely "cheep". It would be better not included and focus straight away to a plot summary or non-fiction synopsis. :: ] : ]/] 11:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::When you're making a synopsis it's a bit tiresome to keep saying "in chapter 4, which is about ...", but information is lost if that's left out. A hideable template would make it easier to cover this information. ] (]) 23:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Any opinion about the chapters being merely listed in the body of the article? It doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. Some little discussion here ]. ] (]) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

== <s>Request for assistance due to my own stupid mistake</s> ==

<s>'''Thanks''' I just tried to make ] and it didn't go quite right:
*Two sections - Pamphlets and Scripts - won't display the number, but rather their name surrounded by curly brackets
*For several sections - but not all - the "link" text appears in the infobox instead of the number
*When I actually inserted it into a page, the caption and image fields do not work properly, although they show up just fine in the documentation.
Clearly, I am not a templates whiz, but I was even worse at making one than I thought. If someone wants to help me fix this, I'd appreciate it. —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)</s>

===New template for bibliographies===
'''Check it out''' It should be working now: ]. Comments, questions, edits, usage, etc. welcome. —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

== Merge discussion: ] → ] ==

Please come and participate in this discussion. Thank you. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

== Move discussion ==

'''].''' Please take a look. Thanks. —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

== Notability of short stories ==

I've asked a question at ], about whether a guideline for short story articles should be created. There are many short story articles that have only a synopsis. Any opinions and suggestions offered there are appreciated. ] (]) 02:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

I declined the db-bio deletion on this one because of the credible claims of notability, but I'd like a second (or third) opinion. - Dan ] (]) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Any thoughts on this article, speedied by another admin?
:Barbara DeMarco-Barrett, born in Altoona, PA, is author of ''Pen on Fire: A Busy Woman's Guide to Igniting the Writer Within'' (Harcourt, 2004). As of April 2009, the book has had seven printings. She is host of "Writers on Writing," a weekly radio show that broadcasts at KUCI-FM and on iTunes. She teaches at UC-Irvine Extension and online at Gotham Writers Workshop. She is founder of ''Pen on Fire: A Speakers Series. She has written for The Los Angeles Times, Poets & Writers, Westways, The Writer, Writers' Digest, The San Jose Mercury News, Toronto Sun, Sunset'' and more. Her website is www.penonfire.com.

- Dan ] (]) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

== WP:NOT#PLOT ==



{{fmbox|
style=background: #ECF6FF; border-left: 1em solid #51A7F4;|
text='''WP:NOT#PLOT:''' There is an ] discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from ]. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll. |
}} }}
{{ombox|text=See also: ]}}
<blockquote style="background:#f5faff; border: 1px solid black; padding: 1em;">{{article alerts columns|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Books/Article alerts}}</blockquote>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(21d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Books/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 19
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}<!-- set minthreadsleft to 4 to display contents -->
__TOC__
== AfD discussion ==


] about ] may be of interest to editors participating in this project. Just putting it here because I don't know if any of the contributors to the discussion are members of the project. ] (]) 04:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
== Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology on Peer review ==

] recently achieved ] status and is now on ]. See ]. ''']''' (]) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

== Hrafnkels saga ==

{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 13:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

== FAR ==
{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ''']''' ('']'') 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can some people from here review this? I don't want to be unfair to it, but I think that it shows little relationship to anything sensible. Notably, it proposes that if someone starts an article with an introductory sentence and a plot summary, the article should be immediately deleted; and the whole thing seems nothing more than an attack on plot summaries and other basic information about fictional works. ] (]) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

== Persian Fire ==

Right now, the article ] constitutes a redirect to ], however, I have found non-trivial mentions of ''Persian Fire'' by both ] () and ] (), passing ]. I think Persian Fire needs its own article, but I wasn't sure, so I asked. ]]] 00:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry, the article ] is the redirect. ] is a redlink. ]]] 00:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

== Prod template warning ==

During the week I added a propsed deletion template to ] and the article on its author ]. The prods are on grounds of being self-published based on what I could understand of the websites for book and publisher.--] (]) 20:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

==GA Sweeps invitation==
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with ] under their scope. Since August 2007, ] has been participating in ''']'''. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the ]. After nearly two years, the ''']''' has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A ''']''' has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the ] for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the ]. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the ] or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or ] and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! ] (] • ]) 22:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Notability and fiction ==

{{fmbox|
style=background: #ECF6FF; border-left: 1em solid #51A7F4;|
text='''WP:FICT:''' There is an ] discussing the consensus on notability and how it applies to elements of fiction. Please feel free to comment on views and proposals, and add your own at ]. |
}}

== "Year in literature" linked years on ] ==

An editor is proposing that all "year in literature" links be stripped out of the article of ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b></span> 04:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

== Italicized titles ==

A relatively new template, <nowiki>{{italictitle}}</nowiki> is currently being used to change the article titles on various pages that have the scientific name of an organism. There is currently a bot request to mass-update these articles. I just wanted to bring up a discussion here regarding the use of this template in other article titles where it may be useful.

Throughout many articles, including '']'', the title is italicized when used '''within''' the article, but not in the actual title. All input is welcome to decide whether or not to implement this new feature in films, video games, and book titles.

Discussions on the use of this italicized title feature for use in organism articles can be seen ] and ]. --<font face="serif">] <sup>]</sup></font> 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

===General RFC on italic titles===
I've started on RFC on whether or not this template should be used ]. All comments are welcome. –] (]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]) 16:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

== Watchlist request ==

An agenda account, , has recently reappeared at '']''.

Background on the book: ''TMMWBQ'' is a controversial book that a vocal subset of ] have attacked for saying politically dangerous things in insensitive ways, and for dismissing the "]" story as if it were simple nonsense.

Background on the Misplaced Pages article: At least one Misplaced Pages editor figured prominently in the associated scandal. As far as I can tell, DarlieB believes that the peer-reviewed journal article PMID 18431641 is libelous, but that, e.g., when a transwoman posted photos of the author's children on the web with their real names and nasty captions, that was perfectly fair. I believe that I'm the ''only'' editor at that article that isn't a transwoman and hasn't ever met any of the principal figures. So we have ] issues, we have ] issues, we have regular ] problems, we have POV-pushing, we have a hostile editing environment, and we have just about anything else (bad) you can think of at this article, and repeated efforts at various levels of dispute resolution have failed (including two formal mediations).

Today, in addition to the usual POV-pushing that we've come to expect from DarlieB, s/he is insisting that it's critically important to include (in the ]) the full name of the author's university's ], who made a routine statement at some point.

I'm horrified, and I think all decent people are horrified, by how the author and those connected to him have been treated by certain trans activists, so perhaps my impulse is to avoid naming innocent bystanders is overdeveloped in this case, but the fact remains that the statement
* is not a direct quotation,
* tells us nothing about the spokesperson's personal opinion, and
* was only made to discredit unfounded rumors started by trans activists that the author had been fired (or forced to resign) because of the book.

The name of the spokesperson therefore seems entirely irrelevant to me: The university made that statement, not the individual. I can't think of any plausible reason to include irrelevant details, and ] prohibits it. But I don't think I'm getting anywhere with this conversation; at the moment, I can't even keep it on topic.

So if anyone else is willing to have a look, or to express an opinion on whether it's important to name the specific employee made the announcement, I'd appreciate it. ] (]) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:There has been a long discussion of the talk pages of this and associated articles, and, being aware whom most of the contributors individually are, I reiterate the warning that some who concentrates on these articles is likely to have a strong point of view, based on personal and well as intellectual considerations, to the extent that may in some cases be incompatible with objective editing. They are, however, not all of any one gender or sexual identity, and I would urge extreme caution in making any assumptions positive or negative about any of the editors, or allowing extra-wiki considerations to influence one's view of the editing. The only out-of-wiki consideration is that those who harass someone because of the editing of wikipedia are not allowed to edit here. Other outside activities are not our concern. And WP:BLP applies to talk page discussions as well as articles, though not quite as stringently. ''']''' (]) 03:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the ] process. There is one minor issue - some citations have been tagged with page needed. My review is at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 13:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


==GA reassessment of ]==
I am conducting a Reassessment of the article as part of the ]. I have one small concern which you may find at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 17:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

==GA reassessment of ]==
I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the ]. I have a few concerns about the prose, which you may find at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 20:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

==GA reassessment of ]==
I have conducted a reassessment as part of the ] and found some concerns, which you may see at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 13:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

==A large number of problematic articles==
There is a large number of articles in the ] series of books which have no reliable sources. Just click on each of the linked titles in the template at the bottom of the novel series article, and you can see that every one of those books relies entirely on self-published sources or interviews with the author(s). What should be done about this? Merge everything together into one article that has sources? Start removing unsourced information, leaving nothing but stubs? ] (]) 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

== Could someone add this to your rating thing? ==

The book series ]. ]|<small>]]</small> 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

== Images of book covers in articles on book series ==

There is discussion on how best to use cover art to "significantly improve reader understanding" for book series, without going overboard on non-free content images, both at ] and at ], where a ''very'' large number of book covers has been nominated for deletion.

Please do pass this on to relevant associated WikiProjects and sub-projects whose members may be interested. ] (]) 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

''''']''''' 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

== Publishing History Question ==

I'm having a problem with the publishing information for ]. The book is a collection of articles and has <u>two</u> pages of publisher and copyright data. Even if I ignore the individual articles (which are copyrighted back to 1972), the book itself has three copyright dates:
* Digitally by Softserv Publishing Service Inc. in Sept 1990,
* Digitally by Pulpless.com in June 1996 and
* First Trade Paperpack Edition by Pulpless.com in May 1999. (I'm using this.)

The actual copyright line says: Copyright (C) 1990, 1996, 1999 by J Neil Schulman. The Library of Congress (catalog.loc.gov) says published in 1999.

So:
# Should I include all three dates in the infobox or just 1999?
# Should I have a section on the pubishing history?

Thanks. ] (]) 18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

== GA reassessment of ] ==

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the ]. I have found some concerns which you can see at ]. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== New article: London's "South Sea Tales?" ==
Don't know if this is where I'm supposed to do this, but it appears that this article does not exist. What do you think? It is available on Amazon if you're not familiar with it, or I believe you can Gutenberg anything by Jack London... Should it be created? --] (]) 21:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi. Could someone familiar with this subject please take a look at the article and check it over for vanity press/non-notable authors and other unencyclopedic miscellanea. There are quite a few redlinked authors and books and also the line "Many of these titles are published by independent houses, and the ones from those houses are known for their lack of copy editing", which sounds a little bit suspect. Thanks. --] (]) 23:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

== Request for Comment on Outrageous Betrayal ==

A ] has started regarding the article ], comments would be appreciated at ]. ''']''' (]) 05:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

== Relevant AfDs ==

Two relevant AfDs to this project are ], and a related article ]. ''']''' (]) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

:Also ] -- ] (]) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

== '']'' - FA needing fixing ==

'']'' is currently a featured article under the project, however it contains massive amounts of unsourced content that needs addressing or it could end up at FAR and be delisted. I tagged the article for needing more citations to support the claims, and left a note on the talk page as well. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 03:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 17:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

==NOTICE. RFC: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.==

Following recent changes by some editors to the ] policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Misplaced Pages articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at . ]] 00:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding ''rules''; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit ''exceptions''. The new version articulates ''principles'', and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. ] 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

== Relevant RSN thread ==


== ] of ] ==
Please see ]. ''']''' (]) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
== Book articles without ISBNs ==
<blockquote>'''Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources. Run of the mill, self-published self-help book. Author not notable. Not enough information to merge or redirect anywhere.'''</blockquote>


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
Hello. I operate a book-related bot (]); using its logs from an unrelated task, I've compiled a list of book articles that currently lack ]s. The last can be found at ] if people want to work through the list and add the ISBNs. --] ] 07:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
== '']'' ==


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 14:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
An RfC has been started at ] regarding the neutrality of this article. As it is a book article, views from editors in this project may be useful. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


== Language/nationality categories ==
== Input sollicited on template discussions ==


In most categorization schemes for books, the nationality categories are nested within the language categories, which has always felt very weird. I've seen people remove the language categories as it's already nested in a nationality subcategory, which I feel is actually a loss of information. A book can be French, and first published in English, or it can be Swiss and published in German, French, Italian, etc. I feel like initial language of publication is defining apart from nation. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? ] (]) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
There are currently active discussions on ] about modifying {{tl|Infobox Book}}. As the template is strongly related to this WikiProject, any input would be welcome. --] ] 00:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


:Hm, I share the sense that language and nationality are only correlated, not logically nested. Just consider Canada and French/English. A pure and precise ontology would probably have language and nation categories existing in parallel, at equal placement in the hierarchy. But I’m not sure how much appetite there is to essentially double-tag all works, as eg both “French books” and “books in French”. I don’t consider myself well informed about the best way to organize Misplaced Pages category infrastructure. ] (]) 04:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
== Re bibliographies ==
::Yeah, it's an awkward situation. With countries like France specifically it may pose an issue - but with ones like Switzerland or Canada it is the reverse. ] (]) 09:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Kirkus/PW review dates ==
A discussion is underway at ] that would seem to be of interest to editors here. Please chime in! ] <small>]</small> 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I've been trying to source some unreferenced book articles, and two common resources I cite are ] and ], both of which have some weird quirk with their review dates.
== Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide ==


For PW, the review date on their website and when it actually appears in their magazine is different. For example, shows the book reviewed on December 2, 1996, but ProQuest shows the review appearing in the October 14, 1996 issue, before the date the book was supposedly reviewed.
Another editor feels that the article about the book ] is an advertisement, in part because it quotes a number of favorable reviews. I disagree, but I would be grateful if editors from this project would take a look at the article and make whatever improvements seem appropriate. -- ] (]) 04:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
:The trouble with the article, I think, is that the quotes are too bland and too good, so they sound uncritical. It may be the best book the reviewer has ever seen, but that might be a comment on the reviewer as much as the book. It may be the most important book since 1962, but such claims are hard to support. So, it would be a better article with more nuanced quotations that add some detail, including possible faults and problems with the book. I saw some suitable quotes in the ''New York Times'' review, which is referenced but not, as yet, quoted. <font face="Gill Sans"><font color="green">]</font>''']'''<font color="green">]</font></font> 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


For Kirkus, they give both the date the review was posted online, and the date the review was originally published, presumably in print. Which should be used? Cheers, ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 04:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== Table of Contents Subpages ==


:This isn't really a major problem, but I just find it a bit confusing and annoying choosing which one to use. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 04:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
A little while ago, ] ] that a bot tag manually created "Table of Contents" subpages of Books for deletion under ], since the software now makes Tables of Contents automatically. I volunteered my bot and filed a ]. During the course of the BRFA, it was decided that the 116 subpages should simply be deleted by an administrator. '''My question is this:''' are there any administrators in the project who can simply delete these unnecessary pages? ] would make things easier for that admin, and If someone could delete these, it would ease the process of my BRFA to remove the redlinks, since I think the Bot Approval Group (and you guys) would like the pages to be deleted before I go through removing the links. If any admins would be willing to do this, let me know either here or on my talk page so that I can provide the list of TOC subpages that I have compiled. Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> <small> (])</small> 18:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
:I would use the published date in both cases, but I'm not really sure. ] (]) 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:34, 30 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Books and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBooks
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels
Article alerts

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(9 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

(5 more...)

Featured article reviews

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(13 more...)
Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

AfD discussion

This afd discussion about The Editors (novel) may be of interest to editors participating in this project. Just putting it here because I don't know if any of the contributors to the discussion are members of the project. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Jackrabbit Factor

Notice

The article The Jackrabbit Factor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources. Run of the mill, self-published self-help book. Author not notable. Not enough information to merge or redirect anywhere.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Language/nationality categories

In most categorization schemes for books, the nationality categories are nested within the language categories, which has always felt very weird. I've seen people remove the language categories as it's already nested in a nationality subcategory, which I feel is actually a loss of information. A book can be French, and first published in English, or it can be Swiss and published in German, French, Italian, etc. I feel like initial language of publication is defining apart from nation. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I share the sense that language and nationality are only correlated, not logically nested. Just consider Canada and French/English. A pure and precise ontology would probably have language and nation categories existing in parallel, at equal placement in the hierarchy. But I’m not sure how much appetite there is to essentially double-tag all works, as eg both “French books” and “books in French”. I don’t consider myself well informed about the best way to organize Misplaced Pages category infrastructure. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's an awkward situation. With countries like France specifically it may pose an issue - but with ones like Switzerland or Canada it is the reverse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Kirkus/PW review dates

Hi, I've been trying to source some unreferenced book articles, and two common resources I cite are Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews, both of which have some weird quirk with their review dates.

For PW, the review date on their website and when it actually appears in their magazine is different. For example, shows the book reviewed on December 2, 1996, but ProQuest shows the review appearing in the October 14, 1996 issue, before the date the book was supposedly reviewed.

For Kirkus, they give both the date the review was posted online, and the date the review was originally published, presumably in print. Which should be used? Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't really a major problem, but I just find it a bit confusing and annoying choosing which one to use. ARandomName123 (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I would use the published date in both cases, but I'm not really sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: