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.

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)
Also, if it is just about creating the article, for conflict-of-interest people there is Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Requested articles. Do you have any publishing companies that are interested in a collaboration? maclean (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to give a bit of my own wishlist for publishers: I'd love it if a publisher could file a ticket through ORTS to give us permission to use part of the book jacket summary. I absolutely hate trying to come up with a new summary for the article if the book hasn't been released or I haven't read the book, plus rehashing the book jacket runs the risk of getting things very wrong or having something that's still a pretty close copyright violation. Although as far as publishers writing here... they're already here. I can't remember which publisher it was, but for a while there we had a mainstream publisher that was making tons of pages for their authors and linking to them on their official website. This wouldn't have been so bad except that a large majority of the authors failed notability guidelines since their books never really gained that much coverage, if any. They eventually stopped but to this date they were never officially called out and they never openly stated a conflict of interest. It was pretty much a nightmare trying to clean up after and there are still dozens of pages left over that were never found. I can't remember which publisher it was, but it was one of the larger publishers. They've all since changed their website layout, so I can't easily detect which one it is/was. In any case, I don't particularly mind them being here but they would absolutely NEED to go through either AfC or the request page for books. OR if they're so inclined, they could go to the reward page and offer goodies for people who create a set number of well-sourced pages about their authors and/or books. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for review outlets[edit]

Hi all! Recently there was an AfD for the book Girl Meets Ghost and the subject of reviews came up. This ended up dominating much of the AfD and we ultimately came to the consensus that we're long overdue for a good look at what is or isn't a reliable source. Much of this revolved around trade reviews, predominantly because of their length, and we all sort of agreed that we need to look at whether or not trade reviews are usable, as well as whether or not length is something that would eliminate a source for notability purposes. I also think that we should probably create a list of usable and non-usable sources if there are any exceptions to things, such as exemplary trade review outlets or so on. I know that other WikiProjects tend to have a yes/no list when it comes to website and outlets for sources, so I think it's reasonable for us to have one as well.

I think that before we start saying that length is a nullifying factor in review sources, we should look at what trades are usable or not usable. I want to first and foremost say that I think that trade outlets and academic/scholarly outlets should be treated as separate entities. The reason for this is that while some of the scholarly reviews can outwardly resemble trade reviews, the scholarly outlets publish reviews on a far smaller scale through an academic or scholarly journal, they have a very small number of set reviewers (as opposed to the larger trades), and they tend to have a more visible editorial process for reviews. Their reviews also tend to be somewhat different in how they're written, at least in my opinion. They're kind of the reason why I hesitate to say that a short review shouldn't be included, since I've seen some of the scholarly sources write some pretty short and insightful reviews. Here's a Slate article that goes into some depth about trade review outlets in general but the major ones in specific.

In any case, here are some of the common arguments against trade reviews. Some of these were brought up at the AfD, some of them are just common arguments that are brought up in various different places.

Now here are some of the arguments for trade reviews.

What I'm proposing is essentially that we vet some trades as far as notability giving purposes go and finally outright say that all others are considered to be unusable for notability purposes. Here's another collapsed shell with my personal opinions on which ones should be used and which ones shouldn't:

These are just the basics, but the thing to remember here is that there are a lot of outlets that are almost always considered to be reliable sources but would likely be considered book trades. The Horn Book Guide is one that would likely be considered a trade and they're considered to be very reliable as a source, especially since they do have some awards that are considered to be mildly notable. However the interesting thing is that they are run by the same outlet as the SLJ/LJ. This is getting a bit long so I'll cut this off here but this should be enough to get the conversation started. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I favor accepting them all, except for the paid-reviews. I don't see why brevity of the "review" matters, the point is the book caught attention. I'm thinking of some dozen or so books I have not created entries for, because I can't even find them in PW or KR, let alone any newspapers. Those are clearly non-notable. I have one book in mind whose only review I've ever found was in NYT. Again, non-notable. Choor monster (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Choor monster: Non-notable is "no one said anything who was not paid to do so". We, thankfully, as Wikipedians, do not have to worry about literal "shelf-space" and should not worry about the virtual equivalent. Otherwise, we should just print Wikipedia and be done with it. I also daily think about what books to create entries for. Yesterday it was Gloria Naylor's Bailey's Cafe. But for every article I do create I must skip 10 or 12 possibles. HullIntegritytalk / 15:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Query: Just to understand the nature of the discussion, could the Children's Literature group have a different set of guidelines from the Books Project? Is there some hierarchy (for want of a better word) here I am missing? HullIntegritytalk / 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment (moved from previous discussion): I want to transition my comment from the previous discussion. If that is inappropriate, please let me know. -- External notability bias for children's literature: I would like to point out that when looking for "solid reviews" to prove "notability" there are many fewer credible reviewers of children's literature, and fewer venues for publishing those reviews, and the page space (the "inches") given to said reviews are much less than for mainstream fiction. Which is not to mention that there are many fewer awards (two main ones and a few others), so the chances of a quality children's book "passing muster" by the standards currently set for mainstream fiction may have to be looser for children's literature: a semi-protected class if you will. Four to five picture books a year get Caldecott medals. By comparison, how many credible SF awards are out there? Too many for me to take the time to count to prove this point. External bias can yield incidental internal bias. And then there is the issue that if I write and publish a review of Girl Meets Ghost in a reputable journal or magazine (which I most certainly could, though I would prefer not to at this time) then I have walked into a Conflict of Interest as I would be self-promoting my own academic work. Children’s Literature is a very large industry with very few critics willing to follow it as it is considered a “career killer” in academe. I am a full professor with tenure, so that does not bother me since that part of my career is done. But many academics and journalist-critics just won’t touch Children’s literature. So we have a systematic bias that results in inadvertent Wikipedia bias. Sometimes the same rules should not apply to everything. HullIntegritytalk / 23:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pursuant to WP:GNG and WP:NB, the point is that it be "non-trivial coverage", regardless of which of the above sources it is coming from. I interpret a dedicated review as non-trivial, but a listing (ie. title, publisher, price) in the 'also published this month' section as trivial. maclean (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment* I agree. HullIntegritytalk / 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Are all listings worthless for notability? I have come across library journal articles listing official recommendations for children's literature, broken down by genre. Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It would somewhat depend on the listing. Sometimes libraries will list the books they received that month or journals will list newly released works as well. Stuff like that can't be used to show notability. However if you're talking about stuff like YALSA's recommendations, then that would probably be usable to show notability depending on the list. Their Best Fiction for Young Adults would be usable, but a list that was based on stuff that they'd recommend for libraries/teachers looking for books based on the American Revolution would most likely not be usable unless the list went into some depth. For example, this list by the Library Journal/Horn Book Guide wouldn't be usable since it's somewhat of a routine list and doesn't go into any true depth, so it's pretty much trivial in tone. Basically if the list is something that is extremely exclusive and is considered to be an award in and of itself (but isn't strictly labeled as such) then it'd be usable. If it's just a recommended reads section then it probably isn't usable regardless of whether or not it's on a RS. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The specific listing that triggered my question is this one, regarding recommended Puerto Rican literature, from the RASD/ALA (References and Adult Services Division, American Library Association):
  • Freiband, Susan; Morales, Nydia (Fall 1993). "From Committees of RASD". RQ (ALA) 33 (1): 50–62. JSTOR 25829432. 
I've not used it and wasn't expecting it to be usable. Choor monster (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Books and Children's[edit]

Query - I have noticed a trend that Wikiproject Books banners on Children's Literature articles are being systematically removed. Does that need to be discussed? Does the Books Project not want to be associated with Children's Lit? It just seems odd since we seem to be discussing Children's, middle grade, and YA a lot here. HullIntegritytalk / 15:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what the purpose of having separate Wikiprojects for Books, Novels and Children's Literature is supposed to be accomplishing. Seems like a lot of duplication and division of resources. Regardless, I tag articles to the most specific WikiProject available, like WPPChildren's Literature rather than WPPBooks. Tagging them with multiple projects seems like it exacerbates the duplication and division of resources problem and dilutes the purpose (or identity) of individual Projects. maclean (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Some wikiprojects provide clear statements of scope. Even more explicitly WP:Books section 1 is a list of instructions pertaining to the talk page banner, including one "Articles concerning fiction should be directed to WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Children's literature and WikiProject Fictional characters."
I would prefer there be a Books project happily taking or sharing reponsibility for articles such as book, of course, and American Booksellers Association, editor, endpapers, library, National Book Award, picture book, small press, vellum, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
I link only some of those such articles to Portal:Books --no children's book or writer articles such as Wesley Dennis (illustrator); rather, Portal:Children's literature.
Among those ten pages only Weidenfeld & Nicolson now links the Books portal (if i glance correctly!). Three of the talk pages display the WP Books banner: talk:book and two that display it alone, namely talk:endpaper and talk:small press.
--P64 (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
All of that is very useful to think about. Thank you (all above). I clearly have some reading to do. HullIntegritytalk / 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see Taskforces used more, rather than starting up new WikiProjects. But until then, I like what Template:WikiProject Canada has done with all their over-lapping Wikiprojects. —maclean (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll point out that WP:NOVELS already has 17 task forces and one more in development. (See the sidebar, near its bottom.) Choor monster (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


I have read the of this article, but I don't see any reference to the origine of the script and illustrations. How was the manuscript acquired in the 1st place, and by whom. How did it come to be in the possession of anyone in the west. How old is the original text/images estimated to be. I tried to do a search on many of the engines, and was unsuccessful. Any help to ahead light on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprice17 (talkcontribs) 20:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)