Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Literature (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Request for photographs and images[edit]

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of writers if it contains the template(s) {{WPBooks}}, {{WikiProject Books}}, {{WPJournals}}, {{NovelsWikiProject}}, {{WikiProject Novels}}, {{WPPoetry}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.

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)

Writer Templates[edit]

How come the "influences" don't show up on the infoboxes for writers?

Go to Tom Clancy or Shakespeare for example. They have "influences" in the info boxes, but it doesn't display. I just tried to use the infobox template for someone else.

Also see Gary Gygax. Same thing. There is info in the template for "influences" but it just plain doesn't display. Why? (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping someone could answer this. Is this a bug that needs to be reported? If so, how would I do that? (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
In the absence of the courtesy of a response, I've reported it as a bug. Apparently it has been discussed before: I guess the question is why it still shows up in the template. (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2015 (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) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What experts say about prevalent slants in entries on literary works[edit]

I am seeking information about what experts say might be considered the prevalent theoretical slant in descriptions of literary works in Wikipedia entries. In case you know of any studies, please refer to the section at the Humanities Desk, thank you, --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Prose, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

New Wikipedia Library Donations[edit]

Hello all, there are two recent donations available through The Wikipedia Library that are relevant to this project: WP:Women Writers Online and WP:Project MUSE. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Enjoy! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Glassgold[edit]

Rev. H. Carlton Earwiggherd contacted me about Peter Glassgold, an author, editor and publisher. There's a discussion about sources on my talk page; it appears Glassgold meets the standards of notability, but finding third-party coverage may prove something of a challenge. If there were enough sources online I'd have whipped up a short article on Glassgold myself, but it seems a more thorough search would be necessary to find those necessary sources. Help by people more familiar with (and more enthused about) the publishing world than myself would be greatly appreciated. Huon (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the problem of finding enough sources to justify a Wikipedia entry for Peter Glassgold points to a larger problem with Wikipedia. Peter, like me, is in his 70's. He did his major work and had the most influence on literature before the internet was there to suck up all that information. He is eminently qualified for a Wikipedia entry. If you look at his CV outlined on the New Directions page devoted to him, that is quite obvious.
I think Wikipedia must somehow deal with the fact that its role as an all-encompassing encyclopedia is compromised by its reliance on on-line sources. Its articles are skewed towards people, events, ideas, general subject matter that came to prominence after the maturing of the internet, or towards particular subjects studied in current academic curricula.
My daughter is a writer and teacher; she has an entry in Wikipedia. She’s a great writer and a great teacher, with published books and a substantial on-line presence. She deserves a Wikipedia article, but when it comes to Western literature, Peter Glassgold has had a much greater impact over a longer span than she has, has been more influential, has devoted more productive years than she, and is known and respected by at least as many prominent writers, editors, scholars and critics as she. But my daughter is part of the on-line generation, as is whoever was the colleague or fan or student or academic responsible for her Wikipedia entry.
If Peter Glassgold, who for two decades was editor-in-chief of New Directions Publishing, co-edited, with John Laughlin, the periodical, New Directions, edited numerous well-known authors of the modern canon, was active in PEN, and published – with publishers other than New Directions – anthologies, poetry translations and a novel, cannot slip easily into a short Wikipedia entry, then there is some flaw, some lacuna, in the Wikipedia system that should be addressed.
Frankly speaking, when there are obituaries for Peter Glassgold, his Wikipedia-worthy on-line presence will be assured. That’s how old-fashioned encyclopedias worked. With the finality of death, a person’s importance – or lack of it – was given an “official” determination. Maybe there’s nothing wrong with that. But that is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.
Wikipedia is an “encyclopedia” in which not only every band that has made an album this century but in which the album itself and sometimes even particular songs from that album each is accorded an entry, yet passes over older persons who have made notable contributions to society, but whose milieus happen not to be internet-oriented. Something needs to be fixed. Rev. H. Carlton Earwiggherd (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not so. Offline sources are entirely acceptable, but random strangers like me who haven't heard of Glassgold before have little chance of finding them. If you know which print editions of newspapers or literary journals have discussed Glassgold or his work in some detail, please provide bibliographical information. If, however, the only source that bothered to write about Glassgold in some detail is the magazine he headed, then it's quite obvious that he is not qualified for an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does't care what someone has done, but only what others have written about them. That same rule holds for publishers, politicians and singers. One might argue that something is wrong with our culture when it's easier to find reliable sources discussing the latter than the former, but that's not Wikipedia's fault. (Conversely, I've heard proponents of practically every subject, from publishers via scientists to, yes, musicians, argue that their specific subject was unfairly under-represented in media coverage and should therefore be held to lower standards than everything else.) Huon (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard Choices, new article about book on climate change in Canada[edit]

I've created a new article about the book on climate change in Canada, titled, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada.

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (Coward book).

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User adding excessive detail to plot summaries[edit]

User talk:EditorOctober1990 has been adding excessive details to plot summaries of a number of articles - despite being reverted and warned by several other editors. Members of this wikiproject might want to keep an eye on his/her edits and or try to redirect his/her energy into something more productive. DexDor (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Antagonist, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Fictional Canon : please help[edit]

start quote:

In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual universe of that story.

end quote.


What does "material" refer to ? scripts ?? props ?? films ?? the opinions of the director scriptwriter ??


who decides what counts as material ??

is this the right place to ask this question ?? i would like to contribute but i am not a very good writer so i am just asking.

any guidance will be welcome

thanks for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oduoduprometheus (talkcontribs) 08:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)