Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

Welcome to our WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum.
Please sign and date your entries by
inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
    

Our main WikiProject page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Documentation

Introduction to Discussion Forum

As some are getting a little confussed about where to go for General Project Wide discussions, and as other projects, (including the WikiProject style guide include a forum like this) I have established this for General discussion.

It should be used for anything project wide, and try to use the individual page talk pages for anything specific to that page. i.e. smaller issues.

Also announcements to the wider project user base perhaps should be made here. Not quite a one stop shop, but close.

Enjoy :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

Twilight Task Force

I wanted to propose adding a Twilight Task Force to WikiProject:Novels, as it has had an extensive amount of worldwide hype about the series, and it wuld really benefit from a concentrated force. ~ Bella Swan^? 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that some kind of group dedicated to all things Twilight would be productive and helpful, but is a taskforce the way to go? The only reason I ask is because films, spinoffs, fandoms, etc, will likely be included in the group's scope, all of which may or may not fit under the umbrella of WP:NOVELS. Since Harry Potter is comparably similar in cultural impact, and it has its own WikiProject, wouldn't it make sense that there be a Twilight WP? María (habla conmigo) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a task force would be a good idea, but I don't think a WP is appropriate. There really isn't much comparison to Harry Potter in terms of Wikipedia presence (right now) — Category:Twilight series currently contains 11 pages, while Category:Harry Potter has 9 subcategories alone. Currently the only Twilight article outside of WP:Novels is the film article; if a whole film series is made, and the category is expanded, perhaps the case for a Twilight WP could be discussed again. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Mr., all good points. Before beginning a task force, however, perhaps we should poll to see how many users would be interested in joining? I can't say I'm a fan of the series, so I'll have to sit this one out. María (habla conmigo) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I just start a poll here, or is there a more appropriate place to put it since it will technically be a taskforce, not a WP? I'm also worried that people who are fans of the series probably wouldn't even know the poll exists if we put it on the WP Proposals page, so I'm thinking that I would leave a message on the talk pages of all the Twilight related articles concerning the poll. ~ Bella Swan^? 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you're not actually proposing a WP, you shouldn't post at the Council. :) Leaving a note at the Twilight article talk pages to come to this thread and voice their interest sounds like a good idea. María (habla conmigo) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really having much experience with this sort of thing, would 9 be a good enought number of people to start with? I'm sure as the project moves along we'll get more, but a second opinion would be nice. ~ Bella Swan^? 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so... I've got one, maybe two people in my task force, so nine should be awesome. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a complete, unrelated topic, nice font choice in your sig. ;D ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Sign below this line if you would be interested in participating in a Twilight Task Force.

1. ~ Bella Swan^? 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
2. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Dessymona (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Andrea (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
5. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
6. ~ Distorted Fairytales (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (Yes, it WILL be constructive.)
7. Am not a fan, but will try to help when I'm able. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
8. I've been reasonably active, particularly at the Twilight (novel) page. I would be willing to sign up for a Twilight task force. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
9. I'm here to stop the vandalism and little fan girls from treating the talk page as a forum.Mooncrest (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Novels Banner needs amendment

I notice the {{NovelsWikiProject}} is managing to throw Template that are tagged as unassessed. The text correctly says that assessment is not needed however someones changes (John Carter's I think) have excluded "Templates" from functionally be treated this way. Can anyone (who is an Admin) correct this, I'm no so although I could I can't :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactive????

See discussion on the members list. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members

WikiProject Novels Roll Call

WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Greeley novel at AFD

Since the Disputed Novels sub-section has pretty much fallen into disuse, I'll post here that Angel Light (novel), a book by Andrew Greeleyis up for AFD here. The article is presently a one-line stub so perhaps someone familiar with the book could expand it. The nominator claims no reputable sources can be found, which I find hard to believe; I can't tell if the nom is questioning the existence of the book, which was established immediately upon entering the title into Google. 23skidoo (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't question if it existed. I said that I couldn't find any reliable sources. All I could find was online sale sites which is not reliable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a Pub Weekly review quoted on Amazon. Surely that's a reliable source? john k (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to add the reference to the PW review to the article, thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I'd say that any book reviewed by Publisher's Weekly or Booklist would be notable enough to have an article. john k (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be fair here, I wasn't intending to start a "shadow" AFD debate. These comments should more properly be placed on the AFD debate page itself (if it's still open - I haven't checked). 23skidoo (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

...Lost?

Didn't we use to have a page/category that listed all the articles that needed cover images? I thought we did and I was working my way through that list awhile ago, but now I can't seem to find it... ~ Bella Swan^? 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact user:Blathnaid as they handle 'Book cover images monitoring' and should know the location if no one else posts. Also you maybe interested in the position vacant to help Blathnaid with the Book covers at JobCentre - Boylo (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember one (that is not the say ....) however there are two categories that cover the same - or similar - ground. Try Category:Novel has infobox needing cover and Category:Novel has infobox needing 1st edition cover. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks Kevinalewis, that's exactly what I'm looking for. And as for the Job, I might take that up. ~ Bella Swan^? 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! The more hands on deck the better. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Novel

A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sword of Shannara

Ummm what is wrong with the infobox? Did I add a rogue space by accident? Or is something wrong with the infobox itself? Thanks and cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was this edit that caused it. --maclean 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Following this query on the infobox talk page, one stopgap solution would be to remove the <br> tag that is added between multiple ISBNs. It should stop the COinS markup from displaying as text, although I have no idea why it works. Hopefully the infobox talk page will yield a better solution (one that doesn't require edits to a lot of pages). Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem as there shouldn't be more than one ISBN. It should be the first edition (or under exceptional circumstances a "notable" edition) only. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Roll call and where to go from here

I'm so glad that nearly sixty members have responded to the project's first roll call; that's more than I was expecting! :) Soon I'll remove the list of "inactive" members and we can start fresh. Now that we are able to gauge the interest and possible productivity of the project, where should we go from here? A coordinator election has been announced for next month (October), but perhaps we should create discussion about what areas need the most work. Any opinions on the matter? María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the Roll Call - I have personally contacted a few (about 5 or 6) editors that I knew, with a reminder of the Roll Call. One has since signed up within minutes of the contact. I think we can do a little more in prompting people - it might be the notice didn't reach everyone or has been missed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally sent the message to everyone who was listed under "incumbent" (or at least I thought I did), and the newsletter also mentions the call. I don't think we should hound people about it, however; overexposure can create project fatigue and turn people off. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No hounding is not good, quite agree! I was just "straw polling" to see how well the roll call was working. I "think" I took a few from incumbent (2 or 3) and a few from inactive to message. But I am working from a shaky memory and don't want to spend my time checking my facts. Anyway, more strength to you and the crew. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

With the impending release of Wikipedia 0.7, a list of selected articles for release that fall within this project's scope has been compiled (available here). Permlinks of "release versions" for each selected article need to be submitted here by 20 October. As a new task for the project, I think it would be a worthwhile goal to try to improve many of these articles before that time, specifically:

• Improve Start- and C-class articles to at least B-class
• Improve Top-importance articles to at least GA status
• Fix any problems for the 41 selected articles that have cleanup issues (see here).

Given the size of the list, such a task may require a large collaborative effort. But I think it's a worthwhile task that the project can accomplish. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a worthy project. Below are the 41 novels with cleanup tags. I notice a pattern. Most of them are tagged as "original research" because they contain plot summaries that are sourced to the book, or other sections sourced to the book itself. I really don't think most of these ought to be tagged in the first place. Seems to me that rules are trumping common sense if editors aren't allowed to just write a straightforward summary of a straightforward book. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Books with tags

• A_Farewell_to_Arms: original research done
• A_Scanner_Darkly: original research
• Animal_Farm: original research
• Animorphs: original research
• Anna_Karenina: original research done
• Atlas_Shrugged: original research
• Bohemianism: expert
• Brave_New_World: original research · cleanup
• Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory: cleanup
• David_Copperfield_(novel): original research · cleanup
• Discworld: original research cleanup
• Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?: original research
• Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (novel): original research
• For_Whom_the_Bell_Tolls: original research · cleanup

• GoldenEye: copyedit
• Great_Expectations: copyedit
• John_Watson_(Sherlock_Holmes): original research
• Le_Morte_d'Arthur: cleanup
• Nausea_(novel): cleanup
• Neuromancer: original research · cleanup
• Novel: NPOV · cleanup
• Redwall: cleanup
• Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land: original research
• The_Adventures_of_Pinocchio: clarify
• The_Da_Vinci_Code: NPOV · cleanup
• The_Giver: original research · cleanup
• The_Good_Soldier_Švejk: original research

• The_Grapes_of_Wrath: original research
• The_Great_Gatsby: original research gone
• The_Last_of_the_Mohicans: cleanup
• The_Left_Hand_of_Darkness: original research
• The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman: original research
• The_Lord_of_the_Rings: clarify
• The_Magician's_Nephew: original research
• The_Master_and_Margarita: original research
• The_Metamorphosis: original research
• The_Old_Man_and_the_Sea: original research
• The_Stranger_(novel): original research
• The_Tale_of_Genji: copyedit
• The_Trial: original research
• Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea: original research

Having just gone through these, the comment on the OR tags as being unnecessary is not really true in most of these cases as most are related to thematic, commentary type material, which does need to be verified. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake Kevin, I looked at Gatsby, Farewell to Arms and one other and mistakenly guessed I had a representative sample. That will teach me to be lazy. --JayHenry (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would like a bigger list of things that needs clean-up, fixed or revamped please check the some what new clean-up list

It's HUGE and any little bit of clean-up would help Jask99 (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek novel up for AFD

Someone has put an AFD up for a Star Trek novel here. My concern is there are already other articles existing on other books in this series, and I'm not sure why they chose this one. It'll create a gap in the series if it's deleted. And right now the consensus appears to be shifting towards "listifying" which might end up in all other existing Trek novel articles disappearing. Possible precedent setter with potential to affect other article series such as those on Doctor Who, Simon Templar, James Bond, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am coming up with nothing on the book, all of the databases that I can check which usually always find some sources for novels at AFD are coming up with nothing. I found some sources for some of his other books but nothing for Antimatter (Star Trek novel) --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that of completeness. When you have a series of books, especially a major ongoing series like that of Star Trek, if you pick and choose which ones to feature, it renders the coverage incomplete. For example, you have a series of books A, B, C, D, E ... Z. But because sources could not be located (and that doesn't mean they aren't out there) The listing only includes A, B, L, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z. As a result you end up with a bunch of redlinks and useless succession box-based templates. So is the answer to ban individual articles based on series? In my opinion you'd have to, and to avoid NPOV and COI that means it doesn't matter if it's Star Trek or James Bond or Jack Ryan or Sherlock Holmes ... out of fairness and equality, they'd all have to be "listified". All or none. Make up your minds. As for Antimatter, I'm looking at my copy now. It exists. And a Google search reveals plenty of blog-based reviews of this book, but Wikipedia's prejudice against blogs (which belongs back in 2002) renders these ineligible. Personally I don't care - I stopped adding book articles to Wikipedia long ago and am spending most of my energies on Wikia sites where folks aren't so anal about notability. 23skidoo (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This "all or nothing" formulation you create here makes absolutely no sense. Individual James Bond or Sherlock Holmes books are pretty clearly of greater individual notability than individual Hardy Boys or Star Trek novels. There's absolutely no basis for the idea that listifying the Star Trek novels would require us to listify every other set of articles on a series of books. This is not to say that the Star Trek books should necessarily be listified, just that I don't recognize this dichotomy you create as being legitimate. john k (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The first half of your statement violates WP:NPOV. To place any book (from a series or a standalone) above another book in this fashion requires a POV judgement call. 23skidoo (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted

Just FYI the Animatter AFD has so far failed to reach a consensus either way, so it has been relisted here. 23skidoo (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration

This months nominations are up, I suggest working either on "Humboldt's Gift", or "The Counterfeiters". Both are important novels, but Humboldt's Gift, Saul Bellow's highly praised Pulitzer Prize winning novel, is a complete stub and is in much more need of immediate work and filling out than any of the novels up for nomination, both are notable, extremely notable, and both were written by Nobel Prize winners who will both go down as being among that countries two or three best novelists of the 20th Century. Here's a link to our page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Collaboration , and I also move, among the members here and of the group, that discussion over collaborations of the month be moved to the discussion page of the group's dicussion page, not here as was redirected from the page.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bellow is really one of the two or three best American novelists of the century? Ten best, sure, but two or three best seems hyperbolic. Gide might fit for France - other than Proust, that designation seems pretty up in the air, I suppose. (Humboldt's Gift also probably isn't the most important Bellow novel, either. If we focused on novels entirely because of Pulitzer status, we'd have to prioritize A Fable higher than The Sound and the Fury)... john k (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Humboldt's gift is one of Bellow's most important novels. Who can you say is better than Bellow in the later half of the twentieth century. Don Delillo? Cormac McCarthy, Anne Proulx, Phillip Roth? Thomas Pynchon is the only one of the five who could really challenge Bellow, but even Pynchon hasn't won a Nobel Prize, yet. For the entire twentieth century I would probably place third, personally, behind Faulkner and Steinbeck. But, as for your other statements, the Puliztre prize section is a very important section, and it's a very visible, we should maintain good, FA status articles on them as it shares, along with the National Book Award, a status as the most prominent yearly award in American Literature.--Robert Waalk (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, and the delay in posting here. In light of the current review of the members list, I wanted to start a discussion here about the possibility of reviewing this project's Collaboration system. Given the declining activity on NOVCOTM, I hoped that by posting here the discussion would reach a larger audience; of course, general discussion about NOVCOTM is best done on the Collaboration talk page.

From previous posts, I thought it might be worth trying alternative formats for the Collaboration Department. The current collaboration format is widely used in WikiProjects that have these departments, but many of them have since fallen inactive. I was thinking that we could develop collaborations that could be flexible when needed, but that also have specific aims towards which contributors could aim (as opposed to open-endedly "improving" an article). For example:

• Listing concrete goals for each collaboration: e.g., promote to FA/GA, expand to B-class. We could even have multiple collaborations based on these, e.g., FA collaboration, B-class collaboration (a couple of Collaboration departments have done this).
• Either reducing the time for each collaboration, so that we don't have a lot of stale requests, or implementing a system whereby a collaboration would start once the previous one is complete (or once the previous one has reached its deadline).
• Having a list of regular Collaboration editors that would help out with whatever articles are chosen.

These are just some example ideas that I thought might help boost project collaborations. However, I don't think that anyone would want to spend too long "discussing" changes, so if no substantial consensus for reviewing the Collaboration Department emerges within 48 hours, then I'll have no problem with keeping the system the way it is. Comments welcomed. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think first that the way you have stepped in to help is great. Also the best idea of those above is "list of regular Collaboration editors". Followed quickly by "Listing concrete goals". We could go to a fortnightly collaboration which some do. If we can recruit such it would help. I personally think (though much experience here) is that the problem is a more general one. That is of disparate interest. Wikipedia is made up of too few enthusiasts for the basic concept, too many either being "fandom", hobby horse riders, barrack room lawyers or by far the largest group, occasional laissez-faire editors. It might be that the task forces are a better meeting place for collaborative effort or at least places to advertise the latest collaboration. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How active are all of the task forces though? The Shannara task force has me and Zachary Crimsonwolf...but Zachary has other demands upon his time and is not on a lot.... So it's mostly just me. I know that this task force might be the only one eith this problem, but it's just a question. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They vary, we need some Project Evangelists out there who can drum up good editor support. Ownership and responsibility are real issues over wikipedia as whole. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good thinking. I think it's a good idea. Having a goal of raising up an article a few statuses.--Robert Waalk (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining interest in contributors anywhere on Wikipedia will always be an issue where such contributions are voluntary and open-ended (of course, if we were paid to contribute ...). I wasn't sure how to address such a general "problem", although project outreach and incentives are always useful ways to keep editors interested. I've always thought that small changes every now and then can also refresh interest in long-term endeavours.

That said, perhaps a review of NOVCOTM should proceed one small step at a time. I'll add a section for editors to sign up to be regular contributors to project collaborations – all editors are welcome to sign up. I'll also recommend setting concrete aims for new collaborations, such as promoting to GA, as I believe having something specific to aim for helps to focus people (okay, this is one-and-a-half steps ... oh well). I'm eager to get the next collaboration going, so it may be worth spending the next month or so hammering out the details of any proposed larger changes (e.g., shortening collaboration times, or switching to a goal-based collaboration system) – probably best done on the Collaboration talk page.

A couple of other things. First, I wonder if we should place a maximum time that a nomination can remain a candidate. We have a couple of articles that were nominated over a year ago and I wonder just how interested nominators still are in these collaborations. Personally, I'd suggest a year. Also, if there are no serious objections, I'd like for the upcoming collaboration to extend to the end of October. From that point on, collaborations should be chosen by the first day of each month. A defined starting time would be helpful. Again, comments welcomed.

Let's see how things go. And last but not least, if anyone else has ideas on improving the Collaborations Department, then by all means don't keep them to yourself :) We'd love to hear from you. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For reasons I've discussed elsewhere, I've proposed the article Novel for collaboration. It's dreadful, and ought to be high priority. I imagine nobody cares, though. john k (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Olaf Simons is apparently the main contributor to the article (so says his note on the members page), so I'm sure he cares. Perhaps a note to tell him of the requested collab will help spur further input? María (habla conmigo) 19:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Novel should have the highest priority for this project. In light of the impending release of Wikipedia 0.7, and the 20 October deadline for articles, I would personally like to see this article become the next collaboration of the month. I'll add my support, but if it doesn't receive two more votes of support by the end of 20 September (UTC), then I'll put Steppenwolf (with four votes) as the next collaboration. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FA candidacy of The Sword of Shannara

The Sword of Shannara has been nominated for to be a featured article. Please leave comment or questions on the review page, and help to make this featured! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC closed as not promoted. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Belchamber by Howard Sturgis

I realise I have found conflicting info regarding Edith Wharton's criticism of Belchamber by Howard Sturgis. For my article on Howard Sturgis, I'd found a criticism from Jstor which suggested that she'd praised it. I can't retreive the link any more, possibly because I am not on campus. Anyway, on the article for the novel I cite a recent article taken from the Times Literary Supplement, which suggests she disliked the book, as Henry James did. I have the copy of the article with me. Should I change the Howard Sturgis page? (If you can access the Jstor article, that'd be useful.)Zigzig20s (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can access the JSTOR article, "Howard Sturgis, Henry James, and Belchamber", and others. From what I gather, Borklund says that Wharton was one of few who "praised the book". Another article from JSTOR, from Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Sep., 1965), pp. 194-198, states that she "tried vainly to convince Scribner's" to publish it. This book states that she considered Belchamber a "triumph". This one quotes her as saying the book is "very nearly in the first rank". I've found a few other books at Google that say something along these lines. What does the article from the Times have to say about it? María (habla conmigo) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It says, "Belchamber, Edmund White tells us in the introduction to this new edition, "is the portrait of a sissy and was initially disliked by everyone". Among its critics were Henry James and Edith Wharton ("who should have known better", clucks White), both of them intimates of the author - who was a sissy, but a popular one."

Perhaps Edmund White got it wrong, or the journalist misphrased his sentence - a criticism can be good or bad, but here it suggests that it was bad, doesnt it?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It does suggest that, yes, but it's the Times quoting a non-contemporary introduction of a book by Edmund White. This happens to be less credible than contemporary accounts and even Wharton's own words. If you did add Wharton's supposed criticism to the article, it is made clear that the inference is White's. Other sources seem to say she was nothing but supportive of her friend, but perhaps more research is needed. One article I quickly read stated a review of Belchamber that Wharton wrote for The Bookman -- this would be an ideal (and primary) source. María (habla conmigo) 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I concur, Wharton seems to have praised the book; it would be interesting to read White's introduction to the recent reprint, and see who got it wrong - him or Daniel Mallory. I think Henry James really didn't like the novel, though. Would you change the article with a reference or more, to say Wharton praised the book please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Do you mean the article for the novel or Sturgis? María (habla conmigo) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The novel. The Sturgis article had a reference from Jstor that she praised it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed both of the articles up, so feel free to change/fix anything. I hope they will be expanded in due time, though; my cursory search shows there may be enough info out there. I even found an image of James, Wharton and him from 1904 via a GI search. It may not be copyrighted, but it's worth a look. María (habla conmigo) 20:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Why did you remove the reqphoto tag from the Belchamber talkpage?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the "needs-infobox-cover=yes" tag in the project template already explains the need for a bookcover image. Also, I don't believe reqphoto is to be used for fair use images. María (habla conmigo) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair use if I took a picture of the first page with the title? (I'm thinking of ordering the White reprint.)Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A scan of the title page in the first edition would be okay because the work is in the public domain. Later editions (after 1923) are different, however, and are copyrighted. The title page of the reprint would still undoubtedly be under fair use. María (habla conmigo) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt be able to do that; hopefully someone else will.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge WikiProject Raymond E. Feist series into WikiProject Novels as a task force

Hey, just recently an editor has suggested that WikiProject Raymond E. Feist series by merged into this project as a task force. I thought id bring it here to see if anyone has any comments in regards to this suggestion. the Feist project is very inactive and has a low member count (me being one of those members). Now i dont no how to merge the project into a task force, but i fully support the idea of merging. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good notion given the low editor count and the possibility of cross pollination of activity between task forces. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Expert Attention needed

Can I draw peoples attention to this page

• Category:Novel articles needing expert attention - category of articles tagged as needing Novels project expert attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum&action=edit It is fed by tagging the article for expert attnetin with our project name in the tag. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Location of this page.

I'm sure this must be a stupid question but why is this page located where it is (Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum) rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, which is just a redirect here? It seems rather unnecessary to me.

If there is no good reason, I propose moving it back (assuming this is possible, what with archives and such). Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to update this page.

I've found this talk page to be messy and confusing, so I've created a proposal at User:Mr. Absurd/Novels talk. I've made a new archives box, which stretches across the whole page, and moved the other information into a {{tmbox}} to clean it up a bit. If it's generally liked, I'll update this page... any thoughts? Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this space exists here rather than at a talk subset, but is it necessary to change the location? Would new users find it confusing? It's hard for me to judge, since I'm used to it, and the talkpage link redirects here. As for changing the design, I agree that your version is less cluttered, although the separate archival links are confusing; they almost run together and it's difficult to read. María (habla conmigo) 12:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I do like the new archive box BUT not were you have relocated it. The first thing to draw the eye with page as is - is to "Start a new discussion" "Bottom" with a link. In your new version the first thing is the talk archives. If we did a hierarchy for a talk page I think it would be 1. Discussion 2. Contents of current discussion. 3 Archived discussions. 4 misc links to other project places Jask99 (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of The Sword of Shannara

A peer review for The Sword of Shannara is open; it can be found here. Please leave comments or questions! Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Les_Rougon-Macquart

Hi, recently i've been doing only reverts so i though i should do something more constructive for a change. This is why i started a major rewrite of Les_Rougon-Macquart. I structured the article and added some informations. However, as I'm not a native English speaker, i would like you to review the article and correct the grammar and style. Even though it would be nice to have another Zola fan who can edit this article, I don't think you need to know anything about him to improve the style. Anyway, I won't touch this article for some days, so you can edit without fear of conflict. Thanks in advance. Ksempac (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) P.S : I'm new here, so i hope i put this in the right section.