Talk:George Orwell bibliography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list George Orwell bibliography is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on July 16, 2012.
A series of vertical stripes in greens and blues This article has been selected for Portal:Freedom of speech


TFL notification[edit]

Symbol list class.svg George Orwell bibliography has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list. The proposed content can be seen here. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (for W)

Moved To Wikipedia:Today's_featured_list/prep#George_Orwell_bibliography. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I want to inform people that there are few issues with the article about several unreferenced sections. It is important if it will be fixed before next week TFL slot. so we wouldn't have to change the main app date it's important if we fix it as soon as possible.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to Koavf's message on my talk page, the various publications need to be referenced in some way, pure and simple. Whether individual cites for each entry or general references that cover everything, the contents of the list must be reliably sourced. That's the biggest stumbling block right now, since nothing in the table is referenced. That needs to be fixed if this is to keep its TFL spot. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing the table The table is sourced. I honestly don't understand it. It says "such-and-such essay is in such-and-such book"--the book is the source. What is missing here? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I would guess that the reader needs some evidence that such-and-such essay is actually in such-and-such a book. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Right But the source is the book itself--these books are verifiable sources. Do I need another source that replicates the table of contents of a book? It's ridiculous. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe someone else would like to comment here. My understanding of what's being asked for is evidence that certain essays are contained within certain books. There's no verifiable evidence of that using reliable, third-party sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me as though the entries listed in the "External links" section source most if not all of the information in question. The Orwell Prize website is a third-party source, but the links provided through the Open Directory Project should be cited directly. There are a lot of entries on this featured list and it would be very time-consuming to make sure that each is specifically mentioned by one of the sources listed in the "External links" section, which should be renamed "Bibliography." So long as Justin can verify that the sources he used to compile this featured list are provided in that section, the table should have no sourcing problems. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Neelix note.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources My sources are the books themselves, which constitute verifiable and reliable sources. I didn't use the external links for sources, but someone could I suppose. What it is I need to do? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 16:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In order to compile this list, did you use as a guide any websites or books that list George Orwell's works? If so, they should be listed in the "External links" section, which should be renamed the "Bibliography" section. You must have used some manner of compiling this list other than randomly happening upon a complete grouping of the physical publications of George Orwell's works. If you find this line of thinking unhelpful, it would be sufficient to fill the "Bibliography" section with a list of citations for books and/or websites that contain a bibliography for George Orwell, so long as all the entries on this Wikipedia article are found on at least one of the bibliographies cited. The Orwell Prize website is one link that should be converted to a citation for that section. Some of the websites listed on the Open Directory Project (ODP) website should also be brought here to replace the direct ODP link. Neelix (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Compiling I compiled it by using the library. I just got these book and looked at the table of contents. In the case of one or two of them, I looked at the tables of contents on Amazon or Google Books, but for most (CEJL, Why I Write, the West book, Davison, the 2008 compilations), I just looked inside of the books and made a table. This is a verifiable source which anyone could use. The links are provided simply because an external links section is recommended at Wikipedia. I added the same ODP link to George Orwell, for instance. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have reworked the "External links" section into a "Bibliography" section. Does anyone have any remaining sourcing concerns? Neelix (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

100 links to The Observer[edit]

Is there any encyclopedic reason to have such a degree of overlinking on this article? I removed it and it has been queried so I thought I would bring it here to see if there is some hidden utility I have missed in this style of linking. --John (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Not an "encyclopedic" reason, no, but a guideline reason, per WP:OVERLINK which is to help the reader when the table is sorted by any of the columns, such that the linkable items are linked every time. Can you explain a good reason to not link items every time in a sortable table if linking them every time offers the potential to be of use to readers per OVERLINK? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
And is this idea of yours something you can show me written down somewhere, or is it just in your head? --John (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it's the bit of OVERLINK I already noted, i.e. the bit where it says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." It's helpful if the reader resorts a sortable table to be able to link to an article without having to search for the link. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Helpful according to you, or according to a consensus you are able to point to? --John (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why it wouldn't be helpful given the copious explanations I've provided to you? Why wouldn't it be helpful for a reader to find a link when they re-sorted a table immediately rather than go looking for it? You're the one changing the status quo so you tell me why you think it isn't helpful. Or would you just prefer to resort to personal attacks? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
For anyone else reading this, the next forum we've moved to is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#100 links to The Observer?, and me saying "HELP" has been equated to me being called an "arse". Interesting times. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like the discussion at MOS has come to a crashingly quiet conclusion. Thanks to all concerned editors, but not quite sure we achieved anything here other than to re-affirm there's nothing changing the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of paragraphs in lede[edit]

Per WP:LEAD, best to have four (4) paragraphs in the lede sect.

This page currently has five (5) paragraphs in the lede sect.

Perhaps some info could be merged to retain current size and yet have four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD ?

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)