Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Help review an interesting paper[edit]

As I noted at User_talk:Tbayer_(WMF)#Piotrus_contributions_on_Wikipedia.27s_research_for_November_2014_edition, there is an interesting paper (Public Domain Rank: Identifying Notable Individuals with the Wisdom of the Crowd)that can be reviewed in more detail in the upcoming November issue Wikimedia Research Newsletter (co-published with Signpost) that I think is of significant interest to librarians and digitization/open access/public domain activists. Perhaps someone would be interested in building upon my abstract-like review and providing a few more thoughts? Feel free to post on TB's page with an updated review, modify my own or add a new one. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on lists of books by imprint or publisher[edit]

When is it beneficial to create lists of books by imprint or publisher?

There's a Category:Lists of books by imprint or publisher, created just now by me, with 3 items currently:

There are nascent lists of notable books in sections in other publisher articles, such as Prentice Hall#Notable titles. A redirect could be created from List of Prentice Hall books to point to there, and the redirect could be included in the "Category:Lists of books by imprint or publisher". That section itself is quite brief and not written/edited to serve as a list of the most notable ones, although it could developed further of course. Like that, more lists (as sections or as separate list-articles) could be created. And an overall list-article and/or a navbox could be created to array these lists.

In another area of Wikipedia, i helped develop a number of list-articles covered by navboxes that I think is helpful: see {{Lists of churches}} and {{Lists of churches in the United States}} which cover lists of individually notable churches (congregation+its buildings) in each of many church denominations.

Not sure if lists of books by publisher are helpful or not. Perhaps if they are limited to notable books, and include notes about the books, e.g. what's different about Farrar, Straus's 2002 edition of The Brothers Karamazov? Completely exhaustive lists by publisher are not appealing to me, personally, as would seem directory-like and I think in most cases the publishers themselves publish them anyhow. Thoughts welcome. --doncram 22:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe lists of books by publisher can be very relevant, if the publisher is known for its editorial process. the FSG list is here because fsg is (was) a highly notable publisher, known for groundbreaking works. the karamazov is a new translation, i believe, considered the best yet. a publisher becoming an imprint doesnt make their prior work less notable. amistad was never very large. many publisher articles list the books in the main article. these lists should be broken out when large enough. not every book should be on the lists, of course, only books that are notable themselves. i want to also note that most publishers list authors they publish, which is pure puffery, as very few authors are tied to a single publisher, and are free agents. the books, however, stay with a publisher/imprint, and are sold along with the publisher when taken over. bottom line: if it werent for book publishing companies taking risks with new books, our civilization wouldnt be the same by a long shot, so the subject of who publishes what is vital. ok, down off the soapbox now...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My error on the dostoevsky. it was originally published by North Point Press in 1990, the FSG edition is a reprint. reprints are generally not notable, this is not one. yes, north point was acquired by fsg, but that was after 1990, so they dont get credit for it. the subject of publisher consolidation is vexing here. imprints get merged, but that only serves the publishers interest in self promotion, not the researchers need to know who was first out the gate with a new work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:With the Century[edit]

Page move discussion is ongoing; I invite you to join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles (follow-up)[edit]

A while ago a talk page section that has since been archived included a very helpful suggestion by another Wikipedian, which I am renewing here.

Please write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles. Having these articles can help Wikipedians determine the trustworthiness and aspects of the books they use as sources.

My instructions:

  • 1. Search a university database like this: (After entering the book's title, go to the left pane and select "reviews"). If you see at least two book reviews, you know the book is notable as per WP:GNG - You can also get a 14 day trial to Booklist and search for reviews there.
  • 2. If you see book reviews, try using Google to see if they are publicly available. If not, use WP:RX to obtain personal copies.
  • 3. Write your article using the book reviews as sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:John Carter has some great suggestions: "If you really want to try this your best bet would be to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. I might also suggest creating some articles like Bibliography of Antarctica and some others I and others have created. But there seems to me to be rather little interest in such efforts here. Perhaps(?) a better idea for some topics might be to create pages like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles for good reference books on specific topics, as recent specialist reference sources often tend to be good indicators of academic opinions. [This was originally signed by John Carter on 10 July 2014 (UTC).]

I thought that was a great suggestion at the time, and I set to work searching for every published review of either edition of the book IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh. While I was still working on that article in draft space, I tried submitting it for the article review that happens from a draft submission. Alas, the reviews of that book are so consistently favorable that the Wikipedian who reviewed the new submission (which I thought was at best only in start class condition) then rejected the submission, because he thought the newly created article was an advertisement. I think I will try this again sometime, when I can be sure that the article is in generally good shape, and I can be sure that someone from this project will be looking on. Some books have the misfortune of receiving many favorable reviews, and oddly it is currently easier to create a new article about a book (I've seen examples) if the book has few positive reviews and quite a few negative reviews. But I will keep working on articles on books that are good sources for Wikipedia, because I think the original suggestion here is very helpful indeed. (Just now I'm coming back to the project talk page after seeing a rating by another Wikipedian of an article about another book that is a good source for many Wikipedia articles. I have that watchlisted and would also be glad to improve that existing article.) Best wishes to all of you who work on this project for many more good Wikipedia articles about books that can serve as good sources for Wikpedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: List of literary awards[edit]

RFC notification: Should these four external links be included in the article List of literary awards? -- GreenC 19:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Guinness RM[edit]

You are invited to comment on a requested move at Talk:Guinness#Requested_move_24_December_2014. -- Calidum 06:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Category definition[edit]

The instructions for Category:Child characters in literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) state "As with real children, the term refers to characters who are understood to be biologically and/or chronologically under age 21 during the course of a film in which they are depicted." The age of 20 is far beyond the age of childhood for science and numerous religions. The sourced info in our article child states "is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty" and the sourced info in the puberty article gives the ages of 10-11 for girls and 11-12 for boys. I propose that we change the wording in the instructions to give the age of 12 as the cutoff for this category. Now if we want to use 13 or even 14 to error on the side of caution that would be okay but IMO this cat should not be in articles where the young characters are older than 14. Any and all input on this will be appreciated. When a consensus is reached we should add the new instructions to the cat page and to any appropriate MOS's. I am cross posting this at the novels project as well. If there is a better place to centralize this discussion let me know and I will move it there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Lost River[edit]

See The Lost River, there is an argument between two users that some of the points of the book written under the section The Lost River#Synopsis are contradicting to other scholarly point of view. Their point of view should be included in notes or it shouldn't be included? They are not related to the book but related to a dominant view. Also see Talk:The_Lost_River#Danino.2C_Kazanas_.26_mainstream_scholarship. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a book that advocates a fringe theory. But the editor that created the article insists that we should follow the format of articles for books, which means that the fringe theory aspect goes without mention. Some advice from this project would be helpful. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
JJ agreed with Indoscope too here, I hope we are done now. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No, we are not done. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved now, with the help of an admin from the Frige Theory Noticeboard. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for getting more books to have their own Wikipedia pages[edit]

I wanted to start a topic in hopes of getting thoughts on the idea of having publishing companies collaborating with the making of pages for books. It's unclear to me who heads the WikiProject Books group, but I think an efficient way of getting more book pages (while still maintaining neutrality) is having some particular position in a publishing group write up the basic info for a book (i.e. summary/description, publishing info, relevant author info, etc.) that they're releasing and having them post that to a talk page before it becomes a live page; members of the WikiProjects Book group could assess the info for neutrality and factuality and whatever else is in the guidelines, and from that they can filter what they don't like and post the acceptable material onto a page for that book. I think building a good relationship with publishing companies -- and getting this word out -- would be great for Wikipedia's content variety. There are thousands of books published per year, many that are already considerably noteworthy at the time of release that don't even have a page. Having this relationship keeps both parties relevant without necessarily posing some sort of agenda in terms of promoting a book: it can simply be seen as them providing us with basic info about their book (which should take them very little time) while we provide another platform for which their book exists (which likely could happen at a later period anyway). Not only would this increase the number of pages with books, but it could also encourage Wiki contributors to add to the page without the intimidation of starting it by themselves.

Having not been able to go through the whole extent of the Wiki guidelines (particularly for books), I am not entirely sure if this is entirely out of the question. However, even if it is, I feel this could be a point for reconsidering the existing regulations; there are a great many books that don't have pages (many of which already having considerable notoriety) that would have a page already, had this been a plan that was already in effect.

I invite any and all that find this an interesting-enough idea, as I would really like to hash-out with more experienced WikiProject Books contributors that have a more intimate understanding of the workings of Wikipedia's legal codes and so on. Agonzo (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We will always need neutral editors working on all Wikipedia articles. Editors with a conflict of interest generally don't produce very good article content. One problem I have encountered in adding new articles about books is that if the book has many favorable reviews, other editors mistake the article about the book as an advertisement--which actually makes it easier to create a new article about books that are middling in quality rather than about books that are really good. But I will keep trying to create new articles about books that are themselves good sources for other articles on Wikipedia, following a suggestion made earlier in this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
So it wouldn't be helpful at all if publishing companies helped Wiki contributors by supplying basic information about the books? Or at least that being the means to gather that information (i.e. calling/emailing publishing groups and making a request)? I feel the nature of what is being asked doesn't really invite too much bias, so it wouldn't be that cumbersome on the person editing the page in terms of filtering the content. And thank you for responding so quickly; I am using this talk as an opportunity to further understand how the editing process works when making Wikipedia pages for books, and was curious about the procedures made in terms of new books, as well as books that have been around for decades but still have no page of their own (despite there being equal value in those books as there is in more modern texts that have Wikipedia pages.) Is this a product of the demand/resources of the Wikipedia team? My rough conclusion was that book pages are more dense depending on the demand for that information (it's level of popularity within pop culture or a particular subculture), and because of that there is an order of priority in what pages need to be made and what has to wait or be set aside indefinitely. Do you think Wikipedia is better off that way? I mean, these new books are easily searchable in other places (for the most part), so WikiProject's Book focus should be somewhere else? --Agonzo (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
First on my wish list from publishers would be copyright-free images of (1) book covers or (2) the author with the book. maclean (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)