Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18


Harry Potter Task Force

It appears that the Harry Potter task force covers the entire franchise, and as such WikiProject Novels tags are appearing on biographies of people related to the franchise. Since biographies of novelists are generally not considered a part of the project (I checked on Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Dickens), the biographies of these people should not come under this either. Other suspect task forces include Twilight and Percy Jackson, though I haven't checked on them. These should be moved either to Media or to Children's Literature (not Twilight), or other options should be considered. Bubka42 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

link mine, emphasis mine -P64
See my reply there. --P64 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Link, please. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
No one else yet participates in the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Covers the Franchise. I suggest that the Narnia task force banner may be adapted for Harry Potter. Bubka42's rebuts with allusion to the integrity of WP Novels assessment statistics.
Note that that HPtf talk begins with a record of the closed discussion "Turning this Project into a task force?" (July 2012). --P64 (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Novelists category

There is a discussion at Category:Novelists that would create very significant changes, and I thought people at this project might want to weigh in on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's the direct link: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 15#Category:Fiction writers. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Starship Troopers' FAR

I have nominated Starship Troopers for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 19:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Original vs. Revised Edition of The Awakening Land trilogy

Hello -- I have recently been improving the pages describing Conrad Richter’s 1966 trilogy of novels The Awakening Land by adding references, writing style, major themes, images, etc. While doing this, I noticed that the plot summary on the page describing Richter’s second novel in the trilogy, The Fields (which was created by another editor), is different in several major aspects from the plot I read in my original edition copy issued by Alfred A. Knopf.

I have since learned (through reviews) that a “revised” edition of The Awakening Land was issued in 1993 by the Ohio University Press that was rewritten by the publishers to include scenes that Conrad Richter never wrote in the original novels.

I have since re-written the plot summary on this page so that it reflects the original novel, but I also think the whole issue of this original vs. revised edition needs to be addressed on Wikipedia. I think it is important that future users who come to these Wikipedia articles are aware that there is a revised edition of this trilogy out there, because they may wonder (like I did) why the plot summary on Wikipedia may differ from the one they read.

Some examples of plot differences in The Fields that I noticed from the original plot summary include:

  • In the revised edition, the protagonist tells her husband she can no longer have marital relations with him because the midwife told her another birth would be dangerous for her, even though the midwife told her no such thing. Her husband offers to take her to a physician in an Eastern city, but she refuses and insists on abstinence.In the original novel, the wife does not lie to her husband about another birth being dangerous; she just informs him she will no longer share his bed because she doesn't want more children.
  • In the revised edition, when the husband starts an extramarital affair with the town schoolmistress, she knowingly becomes pregnant hoping he will leave his wife for her. He refuses to do this and urges her to have an abortion or move away, but she refuses and marries a laborer in the town, partly to humiliate him. In the original novel, there is no scene like this between the husband and his mistress at all; the wife merely finds out about the affair and the pregnancy through town gossip.
  • In the revised edition, the novel concludes with the husband and wife separating. In the original, there is no mention of separation at all. In fact, the wife ends up resuming marital relations with her husband and ends up giving birth to another child. She feels partially responsible for his affair because she denied him conjugal relations in the first place.

A Teahouse host said that addressing these plot differences on Wikipedia is probably something notable that would make a reasonable addition to the articles. He suggested that I post this issue on the Talk page of the novel and at the Wikipedia Novels forum for discussion. He also suggested that for now I might want to add a brief section to the pages for this trilogy, stating simply that there is a revised edition of this trilogy and that the plots are significantly different.

I plan to find out as much as I can about the revised edition of this trilogy (probably by tracking down a copy at a library and reading it myself; also by looking for independent sources that can be used as references) so that I can address it fully on Wikipedia. Is there anyone else out there who is familiar with either of the editions of this trilogy and can help me? Thanks for any advice. Perpetual Reader (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for posting here. I think you're completely on the right track and should go about doing this as you've outlined above. I'm not familiar with the series, but given the differences between original and revised editions, I think I'd present a plot summary of the original edition and then a section (similar to what you've written above) devoted to the changes in the revised edition, and maybe a section with an explanation of why the author chose to make the revisions - if it can be cited to secondary sources. Good luck with it. Victoria (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Victoria. Since the author of this trilogy died in 1968 and the revised editions came out in the 1990s, that means the publishers are actually the ones who made the plot revisions, not the author. I didn't know they could do that; is that even legal? Anyway, I will start doing some research and keep this forum updated on anything I find.Perpetual Reader (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Read or Dead (novel)
Hi, I found it really fascinating that a novel had been written based on such a subject. I hope to learn more about the book. Is someone going to put in the plot summary for the novel? I hope someone does.
Best wishes
(Dreambeaver(talk) 01:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC))

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.pdf

File:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.pdf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, 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 Main Page 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 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Infobox book: streamlining publication details

Changes to streamline the way Infobox book displays the date of publication and publisher from multiple fields into one (using a standardised format) and to remove the "(s)" in "Author(s)" etc. in line with other infoboxes have been suggested. Please read and give your opinion there. --xensyriaT 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Edogawa Rampo

see talk:Edogawa Rampo for discussion on the name of this novelist -- (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jahnna N. Malcolm

Dear readers: This article has been in Afc for nearly three weeks. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

John Barth fans? The End of the Road FA push

I've been working on John Barth's The End of the Road for some time, aiming at polishing it up for a Featured Article nomination (it's now a Good Article). It looks like the following books (that I have no access to) have substantial information on The End of the Road (up to full chapters):

It would be great if anyone who has access tot hese books could use them to contribute to the article. I live in Japan, so I can't access them either online or in the library, and I haven't found copies that fit my budget. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

New Thomas Pynchon novel - Bleeding Edge

As there are now multiple reviews of this available and the release is just days away, I just converted Bleeding Edge from a redirect into a stub. Not my usual subject area, so it would be great if others could jump in now and develop this further given what an important writer Pynchon is. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises

You might be interested in this list, as it includes multimedia franchises with literary components. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The End of the Road by John Barth image debate

I have moved the below from the relevant User talk pages to garner wider input :

Hi, I have reinstated the preferred first edition image of The End of the Road as per the infobox guidelines, hope that's OK. I think you'll need to tidy up my references though (principally for cover artist, not sure if reference for publisher and pages are really necessary) Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. "Preferred", I'm almost postive, means that an image from the 1st edtion is preferred to another edition. Since the image wasn't replaced with one from another edition, there is nothing to be preferred. I removed it basically because the image doesn't actually contribute to the article—it's not strongly associated with the book, and it doesn't contribute to understanding the article. Do you really believe the image makes "a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone"? Rather than a "significant" contribution, it seems to me that it makes no contribution at all. Fine if it were free, but hard to justify when it's a Fair Use image, I think. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I just follow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Images which appears fairly clear, or at least always has done till now... GrahamHardy (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It does appear fairly clear: "do you know why you are choosing that image and can you justify it?" Why was this image chosen? Does it improve the article? Does it improve the reader's understanding of the article's contents? Does it help the reader identify the book? If it were out of copyright, there'd be no issue, since it wouldn't actually harm the article, but it's pretty hard to rationalize how it improves the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, as appeasement to the disinfobox crowd, I prefer to keep infobox parameters to a minimum. For example, are there any editions besides the first that are 230 pages? I have two copies (ISBN 9780553125160 and ISBN 978-0-385-24089-5), neither of which are 230 pages. This parameter is no more than misleading clutter. Ditto the publisher: it's been put out by Doubleday, Penguin, Anchor, Avon, and Bantam that I know of—quite likely several others, as well. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes should contain info on the 1st edition only, that is my understanding. An image of the first edition shows what the subject of the article looked like in its original form. Of great importance to my mind...GrahamHardy (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
In my mind, that's information for the "Publication history" section. I can't imagine why such information should be the first thing a reader sees. The infobox is for a quick reference/overview.
  • ISBN fails because (a) it's not "overview" material, and (b) it's not quick reference material, as it won't help people find the book, unless they're collectors who insist on having the first edition (a vanishingly small percentage of the potential article readership).
  • The image is unhelpful, as it does nothing to orient the reader to the book and does nothing to help the reader have a deeper understanding of the book. It would do no harm as decoration, but as this is a free-content encyclopaedia, I think it's best to resort to Fair Use only when it clearly improves the article.
  • The page count does nothing to orient the reader, and holds true only for the difficult-to-find first edition. And why would page count even matter?
Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
These are some strange questions and comments. Why does it matter to a reader whether a novel they are reading about has 150 pages or 1000 pages? I think that question answers itself. And the first publisher of a book is of historic importance to that book. "I don't get it" isn't much of a counterargument. GrahamHardy is correct in saying that the first edition information takes precedence in the infobox, including the cover. That has long been the consensus-supported practice, and until now, I thought, completely uncontroversial (though we don't do heckler's vetoes here). You seem to be interpreting the infobox as it might affect book buyers, but even if we presume the article reader wants to actually get their hands on a copy, the ISBN and other publication data will certainly help them identify the right book at a library, or any number of online book databases such as OCLC. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditto GrahamHardy and postdlf, the infobox information is supposed to familiarize the audience with the original first edition physical form of the book, not to effect buying habits. Books are physical and material objects, and as much as we like to emphasize the content, we should respect the physicality of them as well. That being said their are always room for recording editions as they have been published such as I did in Quicksilver (novel), Sadads (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The End of the Road
Author John Barth
Country U.S.
Language English
Genre Novel
Publication date
Preceded by The Floating Opera
Followed by The Sot-Weed Factor
postdlf & Sadads: To the right is the infobox as I had it in the article. As you can see, it has nothing to do with "buying habits". It is a neutral infobox limited to those parameters that hold true for all editions.
GrahamHardy: Do you see why I think just copying & pasting this discussion was a bad idea? The discussion has already turned to gibberish. Can we reboot and give a little context? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I think the rest of us are done here, unless you have a new and different argument to raise. We already know your opinion of how stripped down the infobox should be and all disagree for the reasons given. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody's given any reason why information that belongs properly in the "Publication history" section should be in the infobox. I also haven't seen a response to "do you know why you are choosing that image and can you justify it?"—not my question, but from the guidelines. We're talking about a copyrighted image that is not even discussed in the body of the article.

Keep in mind as well that there is no policy impelling editors to include an infobox. Removing it entirely is also an option—as the primary editor of the article, it would be my prerogative. I'd prefer that option to having a pointlessly long infobox that gives tangential details like the Dewey decimal number. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken this to Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

" the primary editor of the article, it would be my prerogative." Again, these are some strange claims you're making. Read WP:OWN. postdlf (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The End of the Road
Author John Barth
Language English
Genre Novel
Media type Print [?]
The example at right may fit the special purpose to provide information common to all editions.
Use of preceded_by and followed_by is idiosyncratic because the three books are not in series, only in chronological sequence of original publication. It's also contrary to the special purpose, for chronological sequence is not common to all editions, as is the sequence of a book series. (If a series, that is common to all editions and the series parameter would be used.)
Is it true that there have been multiple publishers of this book but all are American --U.S. is common to all? I suppose not.
If all editions are print then the media_type parameter would be used according to the special purpose.
--P64 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The 1st publication is important, and hence the year should appear, and probably the first publishing company. That's fairly standard in all FAs.
I agree with the point about "preceded_by and followed_by".
Regarding Dewey, how internationally is the Dewey system used, and what percentage of libraries just put fiction into a separate un-numbered area (as my city does)?
Media-type is a strange one, and we should continue the discussion that I just noticed at Template talk:Infobox book#Media type. –Quiddity (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the "preceded_by and followed_by" parameters. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the things

Some balance is required. No parameters are required. An open mind is required.

Images: Looking at some Wikipedia:FA#Literature_and_theatre layouts, we can see that there are numerous standard options for image: 1st edition cover, 2nd edition cover, stack of various editions, frontispiece, 1st page, the author, or nothing at all.

Personally, I'm a visually-oriented person, so I'd find the absence of an image to be disconcerting, therefore I'd suggest some sort of image is good, but the choice is up to the article-editors. I'm inclined towards the "stack of various editions" as the ideal choice, unless a book-author was particularly fond of a certain cover.

ISBN: This book was published prior to the invention of the ISBN system in 1965. I've pointed out before, that one of the legitimate objections the "infobox-skeptics" raise, is people trying to shoehorn as many values into an infobox as possible.

E.g. Candide included the parameter "ISBN: NA" for many years. That is exactly the kind of thing that editors who are frustrated by infoboxes, are correct about. That parameter should be hidden/unused there! "ISBN: NA" is a true statement about the first printing of that book, but it's not ideal infobox material. The only two purposes it serves, are: (1) Tangenting a reader's focus into learning that ISBN is a recent invention. (2) As an editor-reminder, to prevent anyone from adding an ISBN that points to some random ("The Definitive RandomPenguin Candide") modern printing.

E.g. 2. Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949) currently has an ISBN pointing to a 2003 edition by the US publisher Plume (founded 1970) - that hurts my brain on so many levels.

Better Documentation: I made specific suggestions at the Arbcom/Infoboxes case, regarding details that should be explicitly stated in places like Template:Infobox book/doc and MOS:INFOBOX. That's what would have prevented the misunderstandings above. In due time, this will be achieved, but everyone has to be patient and willing to engage in friendly open-minded discussion in order to get there.

HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"but the choice is up to the article-editors": the editors above disagree with you. I'm the one who added the infobox, and I'm being told which image I must use. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Are postdlf and Sadads not going to respond to this? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Respond to what? You continuing to believe you are being told what you must do, rather than other editors disagreeing with you as to what should or shouldn't be in an article? postdlf (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
postdlf: No, respond to Quidity's statements above. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the article itself, to implement some of the suggestions. I suggest we move that specific discussion (if further discussion is even needed) to the article's talkpage. If anyone wants to debate the abstract issues, then continue the threads above here. –Quiddity (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Amazon Average Customer Review

Hello, WikiProject Novels. I would like to hear your opinions on noting the "Customer Reviews" score in an article, similar to how a film-article sometimes mention the IMDB/RT/MetaCritic score. It would be something like "´s Customer Reviews give a score of 2.6/5, based on 140 reviews (oct 2013)." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Wikipedia generally looks down upon customer reviews of products such as books because they are not made by professionals like those at The New York Times, Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, or School Library Journal. The thing about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores are that they are composites of published, professional review scores. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WT:DAB#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises

Proposal to establish new guideline on treating franchises, characters, and such as broad concepts or primary topics is made. Feel free to weigh in. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at World War Z

Any and all input would be greatly appreciated! See discussion here. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Story collection protocol question

Hi WikiProject Novels! I got here via the Wikify drive and found an entry that needed way more than formatting and citation cleanup. The Ballad of the Sad Café originally only referenced the novella, even though it's actually a collection of short stories. Two of the other stories were published as separate novels that have their own wikipages. The novella by the same name is the only other title in the collection that seems to be particularly notable; the other short stories have little if any critical reviews as far as I can tell. What is standard wiki procedure for an article on a collection like this? Should it get a brief article with each story getting its own wiki page, or a longer one with information on each story kept within the collection's article? I don't want to duplicate information from The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and Reflections in a Golden Eye -- do I just point to their pages and be done with it? "Sad Cafe" clearly needs a good writeup as there is considerable scholarship about it, but what do I do with the other stories? Thanks for any help! SarahTheEntwife (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You could create stubs for the separate stories, or you could simply mention them in the main article. I'd suggest for now to keep the stories in the article about the collection and if a the time ever comes they can have their own articles. Victoria (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast reply! I'll get working on it.SarahTheEntwife (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose we have some guideline re when/whether to cover the stories in sequence of publication within the volume (regardless whether some were prev. published).
You should provide a level two heading (lame examples: ==Contents==; ==Stories==) for the level-3 subsections that are now eight in number.
Yes provide subsections for the two stories that were later published separately. Template {{main}} is commendable at the top of every such subsection, in my opinion. How much to duplicate presumably depends on whether any such info contributes to understanding the whole, or understanding particular stories that are covered only here. I think you should at least duplicate some facts: identify as historical novella, murder mystery short story, or whatever; state whether/where/when prev. published; state where/when subsequently published (at least first separate edition); state that adapted as film such-and-so; etc.
--P64 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox book series

Editors involved in this project may be interested in a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book series#"Publisher" Wikilinked?. In short: Should the parameter "Publisher" be wikilinked in the template? Cnilep (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Currently novelist redirects to the novel, but as is pretty apparent that the concept of a novelist is not a topic being covered well throughout that article. I started a draft at Draft:Novelist with some sourcing, and the beginnings of an outline, and would appreciate help writing and researching the topic. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God Peer Review request

The article for Will Eisner's graphic novel A Contract with God has recently become a Good Article. I'm planning on nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate and would appreciate any feedback to help it get there. The Peer Review is here, so please stop by! Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC).

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fight Club (novel) is at GAR

Fight Club (novel), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tezero (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've delisted the article as my concerns, such as the article's poor grammar, lack of sourcing, unformatted references, and poor organization were not addressed. Sorry. Tezero (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Literature at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates

This is a message to inform you that Portal:Literature (promoted to Featured Portal in 2006, delisted in mid-2013) is currently being considered for relisting as a Featured Portal at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates#Portal:Literature. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to offer your support or voice your opposition, I encourage you to do so there. The FPO criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Thank you, Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Task Force: Dune

Hello all.

After some discussion at Talk:Dune (novel), I wondered if there would be support for a Task Force on the Dune universe? To paraphrase User:Sadads, there would be about 600-700 pages in total. Need the support of a fair handful of editors before it would go ahead to prevent it going stale.

Any thoughts? --S.G.(GH) ping! 10:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely be a part of any organized effort in this regard! — TAnthonyTalk 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
@TAnthony:Figured you would, glad to hear that you are game :) Do you know anyone else that would be interested? Do we have any other editors that have frequently worked in that area? @SGGH: is trying to get together a critical mass of people to make sure that it actually does things, instead of being a vacant lot like other WikiProjects/Task forces (I could imagine some really good work, creating something like a Dune portal, etc). Its been a while since I did anything with Herbert, and my current level of commitments wouldn't make me much use, except in building the taskforce infrastructure (tagging with AWB, refining categories, etc.) Sadads (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I was on a Wikipedia hiatus for awhile and it seems like the handful of other editors who used to be most involved in Dune-related articles (like @SandChigger:, @Gwern: and @Konman72:) are either inactive or not monitoring those pages these days. And no one really comes to mind as far as recent activity goes. Maybe a notice at the forthcoming Mentats of Dune and other more recent related works will get some attention.— TAnthonyTalk 23:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sátántangó move request

This discussion may be of interest. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 4#Male writers

There is a conversation going on at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 4#Male writers about the gendered categorization of author pages (particularly whether to use "men" or "male" writers). Further voices would be appreciated to develop a consensus on the standard amongst writer articles, Sadads (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deborah Burrows


Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian literature seems inactive so I'm asking this here: Is the Australian novelist, lawyer, and lecturer Debora Burrows (A Stranger in my Street, Taking a Chance) notable enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines?

Please add your comments near the top of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Deborah Burrows, using the form

[put a blank line here]
{{afc comment|1=Your comment goes here. ~~~~}}
[put a blank line here]

Please place it below any similar comments but above the ---- line. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I have boldly moved the page live, it demonstrates more notability than a number of other articles of this type/genre and provides sufficient material to help readers understand her relative importance, Sadads (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, in general, those books just barely scrape by in notability, because of the awards, and could be best discussed within the actual author page. Sadads (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I did the remaining "manual work" described here that is normally done by the AFC Helper Script described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Consider enabling this "gadget" in your preferences, it greatly reduces the likelihood that steps will be overlooked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Cool beans! I never really use, or travel around AFC, so that was mostly a procedural oversight on my part. Thank you for all the great work you do there! With articles like that, you all definitely help improve the overall quality of some of the new content coming from users! Sadads (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Any experienced editor in good standing who has a good handle on what WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:IS really mean in practice and are good judges of whether an article is likely to be nominated and deleted through WP:AFD is welcome to enable the AFC Helper Script gadget in their preferences and join us at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation and start reviewing articles that are in the list found at CAT:PEND. Less experienced editors in good standing are also welcome to join the fun but it would be best if they didn't actually accept or decline submissions except in blatantly obvious cases (e.g. even inexperienced editors are welcome to request speedy-deletion of blatant un-fixable copyright violations). They are more than welcome to comment on submissions - such comments are very useful in "unclear" cases such as (in my mind at least) Deborah Burrows was. Brand-new editors are welcome to watch but this WikiProject requires some degree of knowledge of "the way we do things" that brand-new editors probably don't have. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wena Poon

Contributors to this WikiProject are invited to comment at Talk:Wena Poon#Autobiography?. The article appears to be an autobiography by a novelist. Several of the novelist's works have been reviewed in various publications. Cnilep (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing help for Ishmael series

Having written dozens of FAs for other projects, I am seriously considering revamping the articles for Daniel Quinn's Ishmael series: Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, and Beyond Civilization. The hope would be to get them all through FAC. However, I have never written an article that falls under this WikiProject, so I made need help with sourcing. So far, I have found brief reviews at Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Daniel Quinn himself also pointed me to a book called Roadmap to Sustainability: Interpreting Daniel Quinn by Doug Brown on Lulu, but I'm not sure if I can cite it. If so, it may end up being the most comprehensive examination of the philosophy promoted by these works. Quinn also pointed me to A Companion for Ishmael, a document geared towards helping teachers use the material in schools. Lastly, he sent me a master's thesis for a student at The City University of New York which seems to cite his work extensively, but I strongly doubt it could be used.

Otherwise I can work from the website, By searching Google Books, I have found many environmental or religious books that make mention of these books, particularly the first in the series. However, most that I looked at simply reiterated the contents of the books (or their interpretations) and then wove them into their own thesis. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I'm not sure if these will need to be mentioned.

If what I've listed is all that's available, and if most of it isn't usable, then I may need guidance on how to organize what may end up being very short but comprehensive FACs.

If anyone knows of other sources that could provide more in-depth analysis, please let me know. Given how popular these books have been and how schools and universities use them in their teaching, I'd think that someone would have written a professional analysis. The problem is that I'm not sure how to find such sources, if they exist. (And FYI, I've already tried everything on your Resources help page.) – Maky « talk » 01:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would always recommend using Google Scholar citations for each of the books + interlibrary loan or Google Books. There are a ton of pieces that cite Ishmael (novel) via,5&hl=en the work. For example, found this interesting discussion on the radical nature of the novel's environmental politics (ecocriticism seems to be much of the scholarship I am seeing). This article] in ISLE (journal) also has a promising footnote pointing to another work. The Google scholar search should do a good job for the stylistic, thematic and other influences sections. I find that most of the style and theme discussions I do for novels articles come from small mentions in passing in larger conversations. If you need any advice on finding or accessing works, I have access to most of the major scholarly databases and a responsive interlibrary loan team. Email me about those if you need them. Also, I am beginning to get a good feel for ecocriticism, so can point in the direction of various conversations or resources if you need. Other routes for research include searching EBSCOHost for reviews in newspapers/magazines at your local library or the MLA Bibliography, which any good university library has access to. Also, try searching prominent newspaper and magazine titles plus the title of the book on google (New York Times, Washington, Salon, Atlantic, Guardian, all have great book reviews). For example, I found this from the New York Times for discussion of the publishing context, Sadads (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Realized I didn't do a ping: @Maky:, Sadads (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, @Sadads:, for posting this. I'll be slowly working through this and compiling notes over the coming days or weeks. Obviously the first book is cited a lot, but I'm not sure how much I'll find for the latter books. Hopefully there will be enough to work with. (Btw, how did you search Google Scholar for a reference the way you did for Ishmael?) My only concerns is that the sources may note the exact same thematic elements, possibly giving me enough for only a few sentences. I guess we'll see. Feel free to continue posting suggestions, either here or on the talk pages for the articles. – Maky « talk » 04:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
For finding what cites the original work: when you search for the original work, and find the work you are looking for, there is a "Cited by #" underneath the citation and brief preview of the source. If you click on that link, it gives you the results, and you can search within those works by clicking the checkbox at the beginning of the search results. As for noting the same thematic concepts: all the better for demonstrating a consensus; also you might find that they treat different elements of the narrative or different features of the story as part of that theme, and can be used to flesh out setting, background, and character sections. Also, I often find that they critics apply different critical theories or concepts to demonstrate similar things, which should strengthen the breadth of your discussion (and wikilinks to related concepts in Wikipedia). I bet you will find most of the discussions about ecocriticism and/or environmental spirituality, but they will be addressing different concepts within ecocritical approaches. Its also a good idea to keep track of what other books the critics compare the text to, Sadads (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Ach... so used to watchlisting this page, I keep forgetting to @Maky:. Hope it wasn't put off for too long, Sadads (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No, @Sadads:, you're good. A bunch of stuff popped up in my personal life and I have neither the time nor motivation to work on this at the moment. I hope to resume soon. In the meantime, I would welcome your thoughts on the sources I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. – Maky « talk » 08:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, everything looks good for basic sources as a foundation. However, you will have to do the basic judgement call that goes with any source use "How reliable and insightful are these works?" I would err on the side of using the Masters Thesis and Brown work as supplements to fill in the gaps of conversations in other sources, since neither comes from a peer reviewed publishing context (if some of my peers in my Masters program are a good model, there are Masters Thesis that aren't always as deep in the literature as you would hope). Weighing too heavily on either of the sources would unbalance the commentary away from works with a higher editorial standard. The website might be a strong contextual piece, talking about the book's use in teaching. However, it doesn't highlight the concerns important for strong articles about novels. Sadads (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, @Maky: I hope the things in personal life resolve themselves. I too have had a rough 6-8 months of grad school and other life concerns, so I completely empathize with the need to take a break and lack of motivation. I keep finding myself at mental roadblocks, where I know how to do things, but the focus and time required to do them are a bit hard to come by. Luckily our wonderful work on this reference source, is always a WP:Work in progress anyway. Best of luck, hope to see you around, Sadads (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox book request for comment

In August last year, all publication data in {{infobox book}} was merged into one new |published= parameter. Work began on migrating existing uses to the new format, until questions were raised about the effect this had on data granularity.

Any input and suggestions on a proposed fix, which keeps the new one-line per edition formatting while providing full data granularity would be much appreciated (centralised discussion here). Thanks. ‑‑xensyriaT 23:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

How We Are Hungry

I've got a dispute with Koavf over the article How We Are Hungry, which is about a novel by Dave Eggers. Koavf apparently feels that it is desirable to include a picture of Eggers in the article on the grounds that it adds "context." I have tried to explain to Koavf that a picture of a book's author explains nothing about the book itself and serves no useful purpose, but he has simply ignored me. Outside comments on the dispute would be welcome. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Children's literature for Featured Portal candidacy

  1. Portal:Children's literature
  2. Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Children's literature

I've nominated Portal:Children's literature to be considered for Featured Portal quality.

This was a joint quality improvement collaboration between myself and User:Wadewitz.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Children's literature.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid GAR

Diary of a Wimpy Kid, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Lucia Black (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

About Bad Dirt: Wyoming Stories 2

Hello all!
I was hoping to get this up as a WP:DYK when I started it, but I'm hopelessly caught up with my obsession for adding references for every phrase and punctuation mark. (As obsessions go, it's not such a bad one to have, but anyways.)
Could people with better article writing skills possibly help me out here?
I was thinking that the DYK "hook" could be about the character names: "Creel Zmundzinksi, Cheri Wham, Frank Frink, Sedley Alwen", "quirky characters with names to match - Creel Zmundzinski, Orion Horncrackle, the Rev. Jefford J. Pecker, Sage Brawls, Fiesta Punch, Gilbert Wolfscale and many, many more", and so on.
Your thoughts? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Novels At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions for bibliographies

I have proposed naming conventions for bibliographies here. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new article about The Manny separate from author Holly Peterson's page

Hello. I would be in favour of creating a new article for The Manny separate from author Holly Peterson's page. However, I have not read the novel, so it may be better if it were started by someone who has. Has anyone here read it yet?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: You are very unlikely to find one of our contributors who has read it (the active WP:Novels editors probably number somewhere in the teens or twenties). I would recommend using book reviews to piece together most of the material of interest to the article (that is the model I usually follow with articles like The_Heidenmauer, Sadads (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I may read it, if I can find it in Australia. (I used to be active on WP Novels btw.) Do you know what exactly is required for the article to be firmly notable? I don't want it to get deleted if I spend time working on it. It is a NYTimes bestseller--would that be sufficient?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't recognize your name :P We often have people active in content area, without seeing them around. Articles usually stick if you prove 3-4 reviews out of sources other than the pay-per-review sites (like Kirkus). Anything that was a best seller and/or has significant critical coverage should have no problems meeting notability, Sadads (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Margaret George

I just nominated the article on the historical novelists Margaret George for deletion. Participation from people in this group would probably help.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Use author name when other novel exists?

...just looking at this, random, dab page. Whom are we benefiting by "(novel)" when other novels exist? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Le Grand Meaulnes renamed

Le Grand Meaulnes by Alain-Fournier has been renamed to The Wanderer, is this action justified? Just thought I'd flag it up as I know it only by its orginal name, but I may be in the minority...GrahamHardy (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks as though it's now been renamed back, so I am happy GrahamHardy (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:The480Novel.jpg listed for deletion, please help rescue it !

File:The480Novel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Please help save the above image ! GrahamHardy (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Image saved GrahamHardy (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Swordswoman Riding West on White Horse

I am proposing a rename on this article; join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access

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) 16:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Renaming more Jin Yong novels

Here are more related discussions: Talk:Other Tales of the Flying Fox and Talk:Blade-dance of the Two Lovers. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Study of readers of 50 Shades

doi:10.1089/jwh.2014.4782 [1] is a study of female readers 18-24 of the 50 Shades trilogy. I was wondering how this should be integrated into the article(s). -- (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bridge to Terabithia (novel)#Requested move

This is overdue; join in discussion before the talk is over. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional character disambiguation

Please join the discussion regarding whether proper disambiguation is Character (character), Character (fictional character), Character (Show name character), Character (Show name) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Fictional_character_disambiguation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

List of episodes in Mason & Dixon

I'm planning to merge or redirect this page into Mason & Dixon, but I don't know which portions are important to summarize. Can anyone help me on inserting Plot Summary into the parent article? --George Ho (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Epic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:epic poetry -- (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice re: RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects?

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

There is an RfC concerning whether it is appropriate to use pronouns such as "he", "she", or "who" when referring to fictional characters in out-of-universe portions of articles. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#RFC: Are fictional characters people or objects? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Novels articles that would be affected by this action are these:

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Novels' (or specifically the Chronicles of Narnia Taskforce's) use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving User:Zigzig20s/My Policeman

Hello. I have created User:Zigzig20s/My Policeman, and I was wondering if you thought it could be moved to a proper article as a stub, and/or how it could be expanded/improved. I could add a section with a listof characters. I could also flesh out the plot summary a little bit. There have been other reviews in The Times and other publications, but I don't have access to them. Are any of you able to find them? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • It is suitable for a mainspace article. In its current form it would be rated as a stub. maclean (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)