Talk:The Hardy Boys

Archive

Previous discussions on this page have been archived

• Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive01

-- Sitearm | Talk 14:15, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Retention of external link

• A consensus has been reached to retain on The Hardy Boys one external link to the Unofficial Nancy Drew Home Page. Discussions are archived here and here. -- Sitearm | Talk 14:18, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

The link to Hardy Boys memoribillia also falls under the concensus of one link per site on main article pages because it is part of The Unofficial Hardy Boys Web Site. 69.205.9.31 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Took it out. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 04:27, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Looks like an additional consensus to keep the word "commercial" in the Bob Finnan link description, as on Nancy Drew. -- Sitearm | Talk 04:50, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Agree with Sitearm and Dan East. "Commercial" is an accurate description for the Bob Finnan Hardy Boys link as a comparison with the other links will show. A related discussion is taking place at User_talk:Who#FWDixon.2FBob_Finnan.27s_Link_Spamming Solo1 22:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Migrating individual pages into one

Is there any support for rolling up all of these one line summaries into just one page?

lots of issues | leave me a message 13:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You said: these one line summaries.

Which "one line summaries" you are referring to? In the The Hardy Boys article? Other? -- Sitearm | Talk 04:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The 59 one line summaries. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... To recap: Suggestion is to take the current 59 separate articles, each with only 2 sentences or so, and combine them into one long page called (something like) "Summary of Hardy Boys book plotlines".

Support? lukewarm... is it worth the time to copy and paste 59 times, probably; is it worth the hassle of submitting 59 votes for delete, not so sure.

What is your take on this? -- Sitearm | Talk 11:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to submit a vfd to merge. We could split the work. I'll do the first 30 if you do the rest? lots of issues | leave me a message 21:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The list of "major features" in the Casefiles section is copied word-for-word from my website [1] (excluding a couple of changes). I'm not really sure what should be done about this... --WillNL 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, whatever -- I'll leave it, and tell myself that it was my own contribution... --WillNL 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

WillNL is correct, I deleted the section copied from: http://www.geocities.com/wroxford/casefiles.html It is not ok to do this, even with the owner's permission, because text in Wiki needs to be free of copyright restrictions. The solution is for some kind editor to heavily paraphrase, and perhaps improve the Wiki section that was removed. I'm not enough of an expert in the subject to do this. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hardy Boys Digests" or "Hardy Boys digests"?

The article repeatedly uses an uppercase D when referring to the "Hardy Boys Digests." This implies that "Hardy Boys Digests" is a proper noun -- the official title of the series (like "Hardy Boys Casefiles"). But "Digests" is not the official title; it's a descriptive term used by collectors. Since it's not actually a title, I don't think we should capitalize the "d" in "Hardy Boys Digests", just as we wouldn't capitalize the "p" in "Hardy Boys paperbacks" or the "b" in "Hardy Boys books". Rather, I think we should probably spell it "Hardy Boys digests". What do people think about this? --WillNL 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey why not!!? Smith Jones 18:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK by me too.MookiesDad 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Grades

"The Clues Brothers books were aimed at younger readers, particularly in third and fourth grades." Not to sound stupid, but how old is "third and fourth grades"? Could somebody who knows please replace the wording with specific ages?Fuzzibloke 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Internal Links

A number of the internal links for this article (including, but not limited to, pretty much every title link and Frank and Joe) link to the 'wrong' pages...Frank, for instance, links to an Australian author. --Stretch 04:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the TV show?

If memory serves sometime in the late 90s their was a tv show based on the boys adventures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.187.166 (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

You mean this? --CCFreak2K 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put some info about that series on THe Hardy Boys article. Did some time ago. WHLfan 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Casefiles incorrect links

Many (almost everyone) of the working links in section 'Casefiles', link to articles with similar names, but with no relevance to the hardy boys. Someone should suffix all those links with '(Hardy Boys)' 80.162.254.106 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Working on it--Entoaggie09 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They all should be fixed, but it is something that needs to be checked up on later. --Entoaggie09 23:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it also happens in the Hardy Boys digests list. for example #179 Passport to Danger links to a Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew super-mystery, not the Hardy boys digest book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.4.55 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Boys or The Hardy Boys?

Naming convention normally says not to use "The" in the title unless it's an official part of the name, like The Beatles, but I see "Hardy Boys" used a lot of times without "The" in front of it, so I don't think it's an official necessary part of the name. Should we move it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

'The' IS an official part of the name. The only series that dosent have 'the' in it is: Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys SuperMystery series. But in the new series that came out last year they chagnd that to: Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys Super Mystery. So 'the' is an official part of the name. WHLfan 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

UK DVD?

Removed this:

Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew S1 is out on uk DVD 16TH JULY

It was right below the first paragraph. Someone more knowledgeable than myself on this should re-add it if and where appropriate. Also, you might want to add another line below the first paragraph to even out the spacing (I didn't re-add it myself because I didn't want to spam the edit history). --CCFreak2K 06:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Series in order of year

I noticed that series on this page go in order of date except for the Clues Brothers (1997-2000) which are before the Casefiles (1987-1998). The Crossover section is also out of order.
This is what order it is in now:
3 The (original) Hardy Boys Mystery Stories (1927–1979)
4 The Hardy Boys Mystery Stories ("Digests") (1979–2005)
5 The Clues Brothers (1997–2000)
6 The Hardy Boys Casefiles (1987–1998)
7 The Hardy Boys: Undercover Brothers (2005-Date)
7.1 Undercover Brothers Super Mysterys (2006-Date)
7.2 Undercover Brothers Graphic Novels (2005-Date)
8 Crossovers
8.1 Hardy Boys and Tom Swift Ultra Thriller Series (1992–1993)
8.2 Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys SuperMystery Series (1988–1998)
8.3 Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys Super Mystery Series (2007-Date)
8.4 Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys Be a Detective Mystery Stories (1984-1985)

This is what order I think it should be in:(Bold shows the sections that should be moved)
3 The (original) Hardy Boys Mystery Stories (1927–1979)
4 The Hardy Boys Mystery Stories ("Digests") (1979–2005)
5 The Hardy Boys Casefiles (1987–1998)
6 The Clues Brothers (1997–2000)
7 The Hardy Boys: Undercover Brothers (2005-Date)
7.1 Undercover Brothers Super Mysterys (2006-Date)
7.2 Undercover Brothers Graphic Novels (2005-Date)
8 Crossovers
8.1 Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys Be a Detective Mystery Stories (1984-1985)
8.2 Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys SuperMystery Series (1988–1998)
8.3 Hardy Boys and Tom Swift Ultra Thriller Series (1992–1993)
8.4 Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys Super Mystery Series (2007-Date)

Should this be changed? (WHLfan 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)).

That makes sense to me. Unless someone can provide any reasoning behind the current order I say change it. --Dan East 01:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of books with dates from List of Hardy Boys Original Titles

Reproducing content from List of Hardy Boys Original Titles which is being deleted for ease of reference, as I note this article doesn't contain the individual dates. Espresso Addict 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a list of Hardy Boys Books.

1. The Tower Treasure 1927
2. The House on the Cliff 1927
3. The Secret of the Old Mill 1927
4. The Missing Chums 1928
5. Hunting for Hidden Gold 1928
6. The Shore Road Mystery 1928
7. The Secret of the Caves 1929
8. The Mystery of Cabin Island 1929
9. The Great Airport Mystery 1930
10. What Happened at Midnight 1931
11. While the Clock Ticked 1932
12. Footprints under the Window 1933
13. The Mark on the Door 1934
14. The Hidden Harbor Mystery 1935
15. The Sinister Sign Post 1936
16. A Figure in Hiding 1937
17. The Secret Warning 1938
18. The Twisted Claw 1939
19. The Disappearing Floor 1940
20. The Mystery of the Flying Express 1941
21. The Clue of the Broken Blade 1942
22. The Flickering Torch Mystery 1943
23. The Melted Coins 1944
24. The Short-Wave Mystery 1945
25. The Secret Panel 1946
26. The Phantom Freighter 1947
27. The Secret of Skull Mountain 1948
28. The Sign of the Crooked Arrow 1949
29. The Secret of the Lost Tunnel 1950
30. The Wailing Siren Mystery 1951
31. The Secret of Wildcat Swamp 1952
32. The Crisscross Shadow 1953
33. The Yellow Feather Mystery 1954
34. The Hooded Hawk Mystery 1954
35. The Clue in the Embers 1955
36. The Secret of Pirate's Hill 1956
37. The Ghost at Skeleton Rock 1957
38. The Mystery at Devil's Paw 1959
39. The Mystery of the Chinese Junk 1960
40. Mystery of the Desert Giant 1961
41. The Clue of the Screeching Owl 1962
42. The Viking Symbol Mystery 1963
43. The Mystery of the Aztec Warrior 1964
44. The Haunted Fort 1965
45. The Mystery of the Spiral Bridge 1966
46. The Secret Agent on Flight 101 1967
47. Mystery of the Whale Tattoo 1968
48. The Arctic Patrol Mystery 1969
49. The Bombay Boomerang 1970
50. Danger on Vampire Trail 1971
51. The Masked Monkey 1972
52. The Shattered Helmet 1973
53. The Clue of the Hissing Serpent 1974
54. The Mysterious Caravan 1975
55. The Witchmaster's Key 1976
56. The Jungle Pyramid 1977
57. The Firebird Rocket 1978
58. The Sting of the Scorpion 1979

Unnumbered: Detective Handbook 1959

Source for book summaries

I found that someone had been, sadly, copy/pasting material into Wikipedia in violation of copyright - but it identified a resource that can be cited as a reference for such summaries that one *writes oneself*: [2]

Enjoy! --Alvestrand 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Noteable and curious

There was a novel where the two visit a war-torn country overseas and in one scene, one of them is forced to fire a machine gun -at- a pursuing group of enemies. Due to circumstances it is not known if anyone is hit. This, of course, causes intense emotional agony. Not only should this book be noted specifically, I'm wondering, personally, which novel it is because I want to re-read it also. -- Lots42 (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it a Casefiles novel? - WHLfan (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not one of the original series, it's a paperback, produced late eighties, as far as I recall. Lots42 (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This book was called "Revenge of the Desert Phantom" book #84. Books #84 and #85 very much like the Casefiles until the style of writing was changed back to a normal Hardy Boys mystery when Minstrel began publishing the books. In #85, Frank and Joe didn't shoot guns although it was still like a Casefile book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.112.41 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wanted hardyboys.jpg

Image:Wanted hardyboys.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Character Infobox

I was wondering if someone could make a Infobox for the characters in The Hardy Boys, i tried but im not very good at makeing them.

i was thinking some thing like this:

• Hardy Boys character
• [image]
• Gender:
• Hometown:
• Occupation:
• Relatives:
• First Appearance:

could someone make something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHLfan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have know created one you can veiw it here: Template:Hardy Boys Character or here: Frank Hardy (The Hardy Boys). WHLfan (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Armada Paperbacks

The numbering of titles published by Armada Paperbacks for the UK (non-American) market is different. Any idea why? RISadler (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is quite sure, the Armada numbering (as well as the Collins numbering) seems rather random and it also lead to some strange continuity in the Armada series.

-WHLfan (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1959-71 revisions

I recently acquired three books of the series -- #12, #32, #34. I used to own #12 and #25 from around 1971-73, and a bit past that time I acquired #19. My cousin had #8 and #34, and I alternately borrowed and returned them.

When I re-read #12 and #34 upon reacquiring them in the last month, I wasn't sure I noticed any differences in #12, but while reading #34, I did get the feeling of differences, and I became certain of them toward the end of the book. Are there exact years for the rewrite of each book, and was the original withdrawn and become unavailable for reading at those times? I do feel that the #34 as I originally read it was superior.

And are there places on the Internet to download and read the books? I remain interested in reading the 53 books that I've never read, though of course, I prefer versions that don't have racial stereotypes. GBC (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's strange that you didn't notice any difference when reading #12 but did with #34, because the two versions are quite of #12 different, while #34 was only slightly changed. In the original Footprints under the Window published in 1933, Frank and Joe break up a gang smuggling illegal Chinese immigrants. In the revised 1965 version the boys stop a gang from stealing a top-secret instrument to be used for the US space program. Also the original was written by Leslie McFarlane and has 218 pages, while the revised text, by David Gramps, has only 177. And yes, most fans (including myself) consider the originals to be the superior.

As for your second question; no, you can not download the books of the Internet. All 58 (plus the revised Detective Handbook) revised original books are still available from Groset & Dunlap. And from 1999 to 2007 Applewood Books re-published the original unrevised books. Applewood planned to publish all 38 unrevised books but only got up to #17. Books 10 to 17, of the Applewood books, are still in print, while the first nine are not. For more information see Publication history of original Hardy Boys series at The Hardy Boys Wiki or ask on SkyWarp's Hardy Boys forum, Mr. Pizza's Forum.

WHLfan (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my original #12 is Huellan refugees, and the replacement is the same in that regard. Apparently, my original was a 1965 revision. But #34 is now, evidently to me, a revision made after my cousin got his #34. GBC (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

How can this be incorporated into the article?

Here's a list from http: slash slash hardyboys dot bobfinnan dot com slash hbos dot htm#top that gives the issue years of original and revised.

1. 1927, 1959 The Tower Treasure

2. 1927, 1959 The House on the Cliff

3. 1927, 1962 The Secret of the Old Mill

4. 1928, 1962 The Missing Chums

5. 1928, 1963 Hunting for Hidden Gold

6. 1928, 1964 The Shore Road Mystery

7. 1929, 1964 The Secret of the Caves

8. 1929, 1966 The Mystery of Cabin Island

9. 1930, 1965 The Great Airport Mystery

10. 1931, 1967 What Happened at Midnight

11. 1932, 1962 While the Clock Ticked

12. 1933, 1965 Footprints under the Window

13. 1934, 1967 The Mark on the Door

14. 1935, 1961 The Hidden Harbor Mystery

15. 1936, 1968 The Sinister Sign Post

16. 1937, 1965 A Figure in Hiding

17. 1938, 1966 The Secret Warning

18. 1939, 1969 The Twisted Claw

19. 1940, 1964 The Disappearing Floor

20. 1941, 1970 The Mystery of the Flying Express|Mystery of the Flying Express

21. 1942, 1970 The Clue of the Broken Blade

22. 1943, 1971 The Flickering Torch Mystery

23. 1944, 1970 The Melted Coins

24. 1945, 1966 The Short-Wave Mystery

25. 1946, 1969 The Secret Panel

26. 1947, 1970 The Phantom Freighter

27. 1948, 1966 The Secret of Skull Mountain

28. 1949, 1970 The Sign of the Crooked Arrow

29. 1950, 1968 The Secret of the Lost Tunnel

30. 1951, 1968 The Wailing Siren Mystery

31. 1952, 1969 The Secret of Wildcat Swamp

32. 1953, 1969 The Crisscross Shadow

33. 1953, 1971 The Yellow Feather Mystery

34. 1954, 1971 The Hooded Hawk Mystery

35. 1955, 1972 The Clue in the Embers

36. 1956, 1972 The Secret of Pirates' Hill

37. 1957, 1966 The Ghost at Skeleton Rock

38. 1959, 1973 Mystery at Devil's Paw

39. 1960 The Mystery of the Chinese Junk

40. 1961 Mystery of the Desert Giant

41. 1962 The Clue of the Screeching Owl

42. 1963 The Viking Symbol Mystery

43. 1964 The Mystery of the Aztec Warrior

44. 1965 The Haunted Fort

45. 1966 The Mystery of the Spiral Bridge

46. 1967 The Secret Agent on Flight 101

47. 1968 Mystery of the Whale Tattoo

48. 1969 The Arctic Patrol Mystery

49. 1970 The Bombay Boomerang

50. 1971 Danger on Vampire Trail

51. 1972 The Masked Monkey

52. 1973 The Shattered Helmet

53. 1974 The Clue of the Hissing Serpent

54. 1975 The Mysterious Caravan

55. 1976 The Witchmaster's Key

56. 1977 The Jungle Pyramid

57. 1978 The Firebird Rocket

58. 1979 The Sting of the Scorpion

GBC (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest doing it like this:

1. The Tower Treasure (1927, revised 1959)

2. The House on the Cliff (1927, 1959)

3. The Secret of the Old Mill (1927, 1962)

And so on. So basically we keep the same list that is already in the article but with the pub date(s) in (). WHLfan (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hardy Boys Wiki

I have contributed quite a few Hardy Boys related articles to Wikipedia, but since many Hardy related subjects do not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines such as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability, many articles on such subjects are tagged for deletion. At first I did not quite understand this but I have since come to see why some Wikipedians believe articles such as Mr. Pizza may not have a place on the wiki.

After some thought on the issue I considered a wiki for The Hardy Boys, and nothing else. A place where all and every Hardy related article would be accepted. Having visited Wookieepedia I discovered Wikia, and soon afterwards requested The Hardy Boys Wiki.

The Hardy Boys Wiki has been up and running for over six months now, and we are currently working on nearly 300 articles. So any time a Hardy Boys article does not belong on Wikipedia, you can always write an article on the subject at The Hardy Boys Wiki.

I don't want to sound like a spammer or something trying to get people to a site, but I know from experience that many Wikipedians do not appreciate many of the Hardy Boys articles, which are considered non-relevant to the wiki, and I thought it would be good if users contributing Hardy articles, which are unwelcome on Wikipedia could be directed to The Hardy Boys Wiki.

hardyboys.wikia.com

WHLfan (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hardy boys cover 01.jpg

The image Image:Hardy boys cover 01.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:HardyBoysUBHouseArrest.jpg
• Image:HardyBoys- dot cover..jpg
• Image:Hardy boys10undercover.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement

A couple things can be done by those more knowledgeable than I:

1) Add a critical reception section. It would have popular reception and sales, the early decisions of libraries not to have The Hardy Boys, the more recent reversal of that policy.

2) If possible, identify who wrote each book. It's difficult to talk about style and characterization when key elements of behavior may apply only to a particular writer's conception.

3) Augment the section describing rewrites, if applicable, to include the fact that the rewrites were to "dumb down" vocabulary for 1960s readers who were not considered as patient or as intelligent as earlier readers. This IS what happened with the Nancy Drew books, as explained in "Girl Sleuth: Nancy Drew and the Women who Created Her". Probably the same happened, with The Hardy Boys? If not, that would be worth noting too. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs major improvement. Will make a list of tasks shortly. Ricardiana (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating Piano non troppos suggestions, here are some things that need to be changed or improved. Ideally, I'd like to see this article receive Good Article status.

• Need images, particularly one at the top of the page, a la Nancy Drew.
• Long lists of books, series, etc., should be on their own page.  Done Ricardiana (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Needs to incorporate references.
• Needs critical reception section.
• Needs info on authorship of books.
• Discuss revised volumes and rationale therefore.

Ricardiana (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral point of view, sadly lacking at the moment.

• In particular, even coverage of all decades without privileging the first 58 volumes or Leslie McFarlane.

• Better, more grammatical, less casual writing style.

Ricardiana (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the article, guys. I've been busy on The Hardy Boys Wiki, so haven't edited any Hardy-related stuff on Wikipedia for a long time. Again, good job! WHLfan (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done what I can on the article for now, and I am putting it up for review over at the Good Article nominations page. Here's hoping! Ricardiana (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hardy Boys Casefiles

Hello, I just happened upon this page from seeing a terribly written article on a novel from The Hardy Boys Casefiles on the new pages log. It seems to me that Tanman666's (or is it Dddaaannn666?) new pages on these novels need to be deleted or merged into a table something like List of works by Caspar David Friedrich (although a list with synopses was not well received in the James Bond article[3]). They don't have any real content, are filled with what reads like dust-jacket copy, and are violations of the policy on plot summaries. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd be fine with having them deleted, or a new larger The Hardy Boys Casefiles article could be created, like you said. WHLfan (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hardy Boys/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

As with Nancy Drew, this is a comprehensive and well-written article. Before I pass this for GA, I just want to sort out some of the sourcing issues.

• What makes this site reliable?

It's not ... I just couldn't find anything that talked about the Casefiles, and I didn't want the article to ignore them completely. Do you have any suggestions? I'll try Lexis Nexus one more time.... Ricardiana (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found one lone article in LexisNexis (which apparently I can't spell), which I added, and I removed this source. Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google News search seems to turn up some newspaper sources. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WOW - thank you! I didn't know Google News indexed that far.... Ricardiana (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - well, it turns out the Google sources are pay-to-view, but I did find some of them through the Access World News database, as well as others, so I added another newspaper source (many just parrot each other and appear to be based either on each other or on a press release). Ricardiana (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You can use Google to find the sources and then use News Bank and ProQuest to access them. I assume you have access, since you have access to LexisNexis. If you don't, let me know. I have access to all of those databases and can get you whatever you need. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer, Awadewit ... I was able to access most of the articles, and I think the two I found are enough, given that, as I said, most of the articles repeat each other. The only ones I couldn't access were: "Grandma's adventures with the Hardy Boys" and "Adventures entering the '80s with series." If you have the time, and they turn out to have anything worth adding, that would be wonderful and very kind of you. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I emailed you one of them - it has a different example than the article. You can decide if you like the "Black Widow" example better. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Awadewit! (How do you send an email, by the way?) -- Please let me know what I can do to return the favor. Ricardiana (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I just clicked on "Email this user" from your userpage. Welcome to the wiki, btw - we do little things like this all of time for each other. Isn't it wonderful? Awadewit (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I never noticed that, thank you. This is wonderful! Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced. Ricardiana (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes this site reliable?

Replaced with an article from the Wireless News of the London Financial Times (I think that's what the database said). Ricardiana (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes Keeline's essay reliable?

Keeline is indexed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals, not for this work, but for close to a dozen others; his most recent is an essay in Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths, ed. Michael Cornelius. Also, his research is mostly based on the archives of the Stratemeyer Syndicate at the New Public Library and, I believe, Yale.

Sounds good. Awadewit (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes this site reliable?

Replaced with news source. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes this site reliable?

Replaced. Ricardiana (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Grant, Tracy - How did you access this article? The Washington Post site or a database?

LexisNexis - added that info. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hill, Jason - How did you access this article? The Washington Post site or a database?

Actually, I was wrong below - this is from the Sydney Morning Herald's website. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Woolnough, Damien - How did you access this article? The Advertiser site or a database?

I accessed all of these through LexisNexis. I'm not sure where to add that information in the "cite news" template, though - under Publisher?? Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That is one reason I don't use the templates. I have no idea how to fit that information in there, but it is essential. I have found that LexisNexis' information sometimes differs from that I find at the newspaper itself, so it is crucial to say that you got the info from the database. You might ask at Template talk:Cite news. The editors there may even be alter the template. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. I will ask over there, and hopefully they will modify the template. In the meantime, I've re-done those references without a template to indicate where I found them. Ricardiana (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• The listing under the "Further reading" is missing the publication date.

Fixed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Beyond GA, here are some things to think about:

• As with the Nancy Drew article, I would include more information on the economics of the series and the ghostwriting. How much did the books cost and different times and how much were the writers paid? How much money have the series made? Etc.

Will add some info on this ... sadly, as with Nancy Drew, little info is available except for the early years of the Syndicate and nothing about the Mega-Books / post-Syndicate years. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

• I assume that the Hardy Boys have not undergone the same kind of physical transformation as Nancy? Have they changed at all?

They have, quite a lot, but I can't find any sources that talk about it - at least not reliable ones. The closest any source comes to a discussion of the Hardys' physical portrayal is to mention that their outfits are updated over the years ... I would love a section that talks about this, but the sources just aren't helping. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You should publish something and then you can quote yourself! :) Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• This image of Leslie McFarlane might be in the PD. You might write to McMaster and see if they can provide with details regarding the image.

• File:Stratemeyeredward.jpg - One of the books about the Stratemeyer Syndicate should have information about this photo. Once we add the info, we could add it to the article.

I uploaded a picture of Stratemeyer which should be in the public domain; the source and date info, etc., I took from Connelly's The Hardy Boys Mysteries. Ricardiana (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Such, at least, was McFarlane's intention: "It seemed to me the Hardy Boys deserved something better than the slapdash treatment Dave Fearless had been getting ... I opted for Quality." - This quotation is a bit difficult to understand - I don't think readers will know who Dave Fearless is.

Added a footnote. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Evolution of the characters" and the "Cultural impact" sections have quite a few quotations. I would try to cut down on them. It makes it hard to read, as the writing style changes abruptly.

Will do.... Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Went through and pruned. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Since there aren't very many images in this article, you might think about adding some quote boxes with quotes from the novels or from critics.

I like that idea a lot ... will try to think of / find some good quotations. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Added one; will look for more to add. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a couple more. Ricardiana (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• It would be best if you added the publication location to the references.

Agreed ... I'm not sure how to do that in the templates, though, and I must confess my heart quails at the thought of re-doing all those references. I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world.... Ricardiana (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is location=. I reiterate my loathing of templates. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, they do have their limitations. In any case, I think I've fixed this finally. Ricardiana (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the ISBNs have dashes and some do not - they should be standardized.  Done

• If you take this to FAC, you will need to fix the ending punctuation of the quotations. See WP:PUNC and WP:MOSQUOTE.

Went through the whole article. I think it's OK now. Ricardiana (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- thanks, Awadewit, for your thorough review and helpful suggestions. I'll start working on them soon. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this for GA now. As I said, these other issues are things to work on beyond GA. Thanks for writing such a wonderful article! Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominating for Featured Article status

I've nominated this article for Featured Article status. Please leave comments by clicking the link at the top of this page. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

South Park Parody

In the South Park Episode Mystery of the Urinal Deuce (Season 10 Episode 9) the Hardy Boys are parodied with focus on their alleged homo-erotic relationship. I don't want to add this myself to a featured article and don't know if this is relevant at all... --Lagerbaer (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardy Men

Great article! I wanted to clarify something, though. It is extremely unlikely that The Hardy Men will be made, yet the Wikipedia article seems to imply it is forthcoming shortly. It has actually been in development since around 1998, so such projects that have been in development for this long indicate no certainty of actual production. I recommend re-wording about this project (including not having it in the summary paragraph of "Film and television") or possibly just remove mention because it is only talked about but not acted upon. 81.39.13.182 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Whiteness

The summary states that they embody "whiteness". I am white, and I have no idea what it means to embody whiteness. Can anyone help?