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.
 

Notability for The Astor Orphan by Alexandra Aldrich[edit]

Hello. I have just finished reading The Astor Orphan by Alexandra Aldrich. It is the memoir of an Astor descendant. I may be interested in writing an article about it, but how would I know if it is notable enough first? If I spend time on it, I don't want it to be deleted. Is there a benchmark for article creations in terms of sales or other forms of notability please? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Here's how:
  • 1. Search a university database like this: http://info.lib.uh.edu (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) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. So just to be clear, do I just need two book reviews? That seems like a low benchmark, so I just want to make sure (for this book and other ones in future) if that would work. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles[edit]

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: http://info.lib.uh.edu (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. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)" (from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#An_idea_for_determining_reliable_sources:_write_Wikipedia_articles_about_books_used_as_sources_by_Wikipedia_articles) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access[edit]

Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Book cover (fair use) for Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution[edit]

Hello. Would someone please add a fair use cover of Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with a discussion?[edit]

Hi! I'm currently involved with a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carver Trilogy. Long story short, the AfD is for a book trilogy that came out in the 90s. I found coverage for the individual books by way of reviews and I've also found enough to suggest that there are more reviews out there that have never made it onto the Internet. (IE, the review pages on Amazon show Houston Post and Washington Post reviews, among other places.) There is one person on the page that is arguing (if I'm understanding him correctly) that we should not count individual reviews towards notability for the series as a whole and that in order for the series to have overall notability, the coverage should be about the series as a whole. I don't agree with that opinion and I think that it's extremely counterproductive to say that we can't use individual reviews towards notability for a series. I know that we're not all inclusive here, but that's way too exclusive and would pretty much decimate a large portion of articles on here because we have multiple series that have reviews in RS for individual books but not a lot of coverage for the series as a whole. I think that's being a little too inclusive and would be overall detrimental to Wikipedia. I've seen multiple AfDs close with "redirect to series" when there are no individual book pages and sometimes even when I've created a very quick page for the series as a whole. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Is for Nightmares is an example of one such precedent where we've had enough coverage for a series page but not for individual book pages. I'm mostly just coming on here to get some feedback on this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Series[edit]

Should the titles of articles about book series be italicised? Ollieinc (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Audiobook infobox[edit]

Is there a specific infobox for audiobooks? If not, should I add a narrator parameter to Template:Infobox book? Ollieinc (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (book)[edit]

Page move has been requested; join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archive releases 2.4 million images scanned from pre-1923 books[edit]

The Internet Archive has just released 2.4 million images to Flickr, extracted from scanned pre-1923 books.

I have started a project on Commons to explore and understand the set, and start uploading relevant batches, at

c:Commons:Internet Archive/Book Images collection

with the initial thought of proceeding along the lines of the existing

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection

But it could use some advice at this, the blank page stage, from people who know about book resources as they exist already across the Wikis.

For example, how much is there already from the IA that's been uploaded to Commons or Wikisource or Wikidata ? And how is it being held / described ? Are there already quite good automated approaches for extracting metadata from the IA and/or Open Library ?

Initially, I've been thinking to use quite a simple link-back template on book-image category pages, along the lines of eg c:Template:BL1million bookcat as used at the top of this category; but I'd welcome advice on this.

The advantage of such a simple template is that it is easy for users to apply by hand, with very little input being required, until such a time as templates can be created that can automatically draw all relevant information from Wikidata (which probably requires Phase 3 on Commons). But if people think the project should be being more ambitious, and especially if there are already any easy ways to draw the relevant data automatically from IA to fill out more advanced templates with minimum effort, that would be very valuable to know.

Please do join in, and sign up on the Commons page now if you would be interested. Jheald (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Born to Run[edit]

It seems we have two articles on Born to Run. One exists at Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen and the other at Christopher_McDougall#Born_to_Run. Born to Run (book) redirects to that section and is listed at the disambig page for Born to Run. A merge definitely needs to occur (the two articles have different details/content as a simple redirect won't do), but which should be merged to which? (I'm not around on here much these days, so someone else should perform the merge...I just wanted this brought to attention/action). only (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether to merge the book page into the author page, which would probably be kept. Does the book page deserve to be kept? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)