Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature

Request for photographs and images

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

Portal:Children's literature at peer review

Portal:Children's literature is at portal peer review. Review comments are welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Children's literature/archive1. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Two new Children's literature articles A Taste of Blackberries, and Doris Buchanan Smith have been added, for which I'd like to invite discussion, or to ask whether any discussion is deemed warranted. From the article: "Published in 1973, it was the first modern children's book to take the loss of a child's playmate as it's main theme." Thanks. Howardrandallsmith (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to introduce myself. I wrote the two articles mentioned (above) and they are my first forray into Wikipedia editing. Once I am confident that both articles are solid, nuetral and encyclopedic, and that they do not constitute COI, I would be happy to assist in any other compacity the administrator(s) see fit, given my experience. I am open to criticism, especially if it is constructive. As to the COI, I am the author's son, and although that fact would tend to disqualify me from contributing these two articles, I believe that I have composed neutral, well referenced articles -- and I continue to search for more references. Thanks! Howardrandallsmith (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A Clean, Well-Lighted Place

An IP user added information to the trivia section of A Clean, Well-Lighted Place that appeared to be spam to promote a new literary journal, which hasn't yet been in existence long enough to demonstrate notability. I reverted the addition, but another IP with a similar address – or the same editor with a dynamic IP address – has undone my reversion. I would welcome a second opinion here. --Deskford (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Request review

If anyone is interested in a doing a FAC review, I've nominated Olivia Shakespear. Although only a minor novelist and playwright, she is important for her relationship with writers such as W.B. Yeats and Ezra Pound. The review is here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

British Library editathon with focus on English literature and Drama

Hi WikiProject Literature editors,

The British Library is planning an editathon on 4 June with a specific focus on English and Drama and they will be providing access to rare archive material on a variety of authors and playwrights. If you can make it to the British Library and participate in the editathon, please see the page on the Wikimedia UK wiki. If you've got any questions about it, please ask User:Fæ or post about it on the talk page on the Wikimedia UK wiki. Please also tell editors you think might be interested in participating. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Shane Stevens

The article on crime/splatterfest author, Shane Stevens has been languishing as an unreferenced biography of a living person since December 2009. I've added a couple of refs to the article to take it out of the UBLP category but, having done that research, I have doubts as to whether this author is still alive or whether this is a pseudonym for another author. There appear to be several references to Shane Stevens being a pseudonym. Stevens seems to have either died or disappeared in 2007 according to various sources ([1] (Italian);[2] (Italian); it.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia). The bio at the literary agent is in the past tense. The article could definitely do with attention from editors with knowledge of the area. --CharlieDelta (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharyn McCrumb

I would like to request editors to have a look at the Sharyn McCrumb page and the copyright violation issue. The page was created as a stub in 2005. You can see for yourself what has happened in the last couple of days. The editor LoraOliva is a newbie, who I believe was making good faith efforts and erred. I don't believe deliberate plagiarism was the intent. Discussing the matter, and helping a new editor, would have been preferable to what happened. I've tried to help somewhat by communicating with the editor on User_talk:LoraOlivia. I believe this is more helpful than what happened on Sharyn McCrumb. Anything anyone can do to assist either that editor, or the Sharyn McCrumb page would be good. It's not helpful for Wikipedia readers to see a page that has a copyright violation slapped right across the middle of a page. Maile66 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

• Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

New article, of interest to project members. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Recently expanded article

Skipping Towards Gomorrah - I recently expanded this article. Check it out, if you are interested. Feel free to suggest additional secondary sources, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage

• The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about same-sex marriage by Dan Savage

• The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Input sought

I've made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Creative professionals guidelines pertaining to notability criteria for writers. I think members of this project could bring valuable perspectives to the discussion. Cynwolfe (talk)

New article - book - It Gets Better by Dan Savage

• It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living

Created, new article. :) Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

New page - created - Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

Newly created page, Dan Savage bibliography. Feedback and ideas for additional information and secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 4,861 (as of 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). Thank you for all of the work you've done to date, but we are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

• WP:URBLP has set up a large number of topic based lists, which are updated each day by a WP:BOT. Your project's list is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature/Unreferenced BLPs and currently contains 95 articles.
• WP:URBLPR is focusing on clearing out the backlog based on the month in which each article was tagged as being unreferenced. The current task is Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2009, and it is the last month remaining from 2009.
• You can also reference a random article or make your own lists using one of the catscan tools, such as this search for British novelists.

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

List Peer Review - Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

This page is undergoing a List Peer Review, feel free to provide feedback, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

List of postmodern writers

Has anyone seen or done work on this? There is also a category. Well...they're completely inaccurate! Faulkner? Roald Dahl?? WTF?? I'm kind of stupefied as to what to do, because it would take a lot of work to sift through. --Lazer Stein (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination - Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

Hey all. I've nominated Everything Tastes Better with Bacon for consideration as a candidate to Featured Article quality status. If you don't mind taking a look, comments would be welcome! Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories by century, country and genre

Are the following over-categorised?

Four centuries of Category:American novels by century

Three centuries of Category:British children's literature (including a half-century which is about to be renamed)

It seems to me that they are 3-way category intersections within Literature. Would it be desirable to expand this pattern of categorisation? Or should these categories be upmerged into each of their respective head categories (i.e. abolished)?

Category:American novels by century seems to have been set up last year following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 15#Category:American novels because of the need to diffuse a large category, but there is a case to answer. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Neither of these seem the least like over-categorization, but rather like the basic necessary expansion. Literature of any language or genre is customarily studied by period. Typical academic course would be the British 19th century novel, etc. The Library of Congress classification categorizes literature first by language, then by century, then alphabetically. there is only one thing wrong with the American categories is that they are not adequately populated, except for the 21st century. The addition of the appropriate books for the 19th and 20th century is what's needed. I'm perfectly willing to do them. The only thing wrong with the children's literature category is that it's populated somewhat heterogeneously and inconsistently including a mix of books and authors.

Certainly I would expand them, as far as the material warrants. The depth of classification depends both on logic and thon the number of items involved. I do not think there is any case to answer at all for whether we need centuries; the question is whether we should expand further, by decades. Broad classifications are undeniably useful, and so is close categorization. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

LC is a scheme for placing books in a single position on shelves. The category after country and century is alphabetically by author, and then alphabetically within the authors works. At what point would you divide by genre? We're not physical bricks on a shelf, so we do not have that problem. But even for genre, the literature classification also does have a genre section, for works not about a particular author. see PR500 and following. And what it does, is divide genre by period!.

More generally, the underlying reason for categorization is to permit browsing or searching by general topic. As a librarian, my experience is that what people want to browse by is unpredictable, but when people want to search within a broad topic they are typically looking for material to write a school or college paper. We should therefore have categories to facilitate such searches, whether or not they fit into our idea of logic or rational subdivision. This , for example, is the justification for categories by ethnic group--that school children often get such an assignment, to write a paper about a particular ethnicity scientist/politician/whatever (and children's divisions of libraries usually make special displays of books to match the usual assignments). At the college level, we should have categories corresponding to the usual undergraduate courses.

More generally still, every time a question like this arises, I have suggested adopting Category Intersection, as proposed on that page, in particular the variant in Section 2.3 "User created category intersection" Item 5, with check boxes at the bottom of articles. It will at one stroke eliminate most of the CfD problems, and the dilemmas of just what 3rd order categories to choose,by permitting every possible one of them that is useful on an ad hoc basis. It is very hard to predict in advance what people will want, and this makes it unnecessary to guess. Unfortunately "it requires a change to the MediaWiki software as well as a major change to the policies related to how categories are populated." I'm not sure how major a change in the software would be needed, especially if we kept them ad hoc only, rather than saved them. The first step would be fully populated parent categories--that is, listing every individual item included in the subcategories in the parent category also. (Actually, what I would really prefer is a switch to using the Semantic Mediawiki extension throughout Wikipedia, if this could be done in a way transparent to the readers--which I rather doubt. I've used it elsewhere--it's wonderfully powerful, and the software has already been developed. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I don't think this is done anywhere else within Category:Works by century. It goes two steps further than the Library of Congress, splitting by country and genre. This opens up vistas of massive amounts of work to do, for other countries & genres. It replicates what could be done using the tools linked at the end of Wikipedia:Category intersection (which may of course be helpful for the work you have offered to do). As for further splitting into decades, where would it stop? Going all the way e.g. to "2011 American thriller novels" would reduce "category clutter", but is not usual and I assume that you would not advocate that.

As for the British children's lit, I'm prepared to tidy up those existing categories, but not to sub-categorise all British literature. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

One step at a time. I agree it's important to rationalize what we have that is confusing. When you say "I'm [not] prepared to categorize all British literature" do you mean that you personally do not want to do it, or that you object to it being done? I regard the general categorization of literature as a fairly important thing to do, but not something I intend to do myself either. But I certainly would not interfere with categories someone else wants to make, any more than with articles someone else wants to make, whether or not I myself though the category was valuable or important. Categories that don't fit into my concept of the way things ought to be seen as significantly related do not bother me in the least, any more than articles about things I don't care about. When they amount to nonsense, they're a bad idea. I'm not sure I agree that there is such a thing as overcategorization. I see nothing wrong with the example you picked as absurd. I at first though it would be better by decade, but then I thought, someone might want to go through year by year. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant that I personally do not want to do it; I would not object to others doing it, but I am sceptical that anyone would. And then there are many other national categories that have not been started; and within American literature, only Novels have been started. It might be better to wait for category intersection tools, than to continue with a few categories that are only very partially populated.

Talking of which, would it be better to create intermediate head categories e.g. British literature by century/ Children's literature by century/ Children's literature by country/ Books by country and century, which could raise even more of an expectation gap, or to leave only the current sub-sub-intersections directly within the head-head-categories? - Fayenatic (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree--I think it would be better to wait for intersections than to do a full scale project on this now. Let's try to figure whom to push in order to get that done--but looking at the progress of non-essential software improvements, it won't be in 2011. Looking at the material, the aspect I think needs working on first is to clear up the situation where we have categories that lump together articles on books, on authors, and on miscellaneous related subjects--it shows a fundamental lack of analysis, a lack of logic that would make it very difficult to do rational intersections. It would only be acceptable for a much smaller database, which was presumably the case when the system was started. I think it would be best to clear this up first In terms of whatever are the existing categories If we were to do a more general project, there are equal reasons to do first the division by first by country, or century, or genre. As they are all equally necessary, I'm trying to think through what would be the easier. My own bias , though, would be to do all three at once, in order to avoid screening the material three separate times: there are a lot of articles. (This is the basic library operations principle I was taught, of handling each item once and getting it right.) DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What belongs in the Fiction categories?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Category sorting approved and completed

---

I notice that for a few countries, the "national fiction" category includes novels, short stories, etc., but it's not true for all countries (see the various entries at Category:Fiction by nationality for examples). In fact, for many countries, the fiction category is made up only of fantasy and/or horror. I'm confused as to the discrepancies here--are we supposed to distinguish the plot genres from the media/formats? What categories SHOULD be placed within the "fiction" category? I'm willing to sort these to make them more consistent. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Threaded discussion - I can't remember where the conversation is now, but I think this was done last summer when some cats were disaggregated. My view is that it's fine to have overlapping categories. Thanks btw for all your work - my watchlist is lighting up! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• All subcategories are okay: format, author, and genre - All kinds of subcategories are appropriate: genre, format, or author. The irregularity you see in the various nations is simply due to the fact that no one has gotten around to tagging all the subcategories yet. For example, Spain has "Horror" and "Fantasy" genres, whereas other nations (Britain) has both genre and format; Japan focuses on Author. The path forward is to create the missing subcategories: for example, create categories for Spanish novels or Spanish short stories. If someone were to suggest that the subcategories be only genre; or only format or only author - that would not be acceptable, because they all have merit and utility. The guding rule is to do what is best for the readers, and categories provide a fundamental indexing function. For that reason, we should not delete any existing genre/format subcategories, and instead focus on filling in the missing subcategories. Eventually, all nations will, I suppose, have format & genre & author subcategories. --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added all the Novel categories into the Fiction categories. I'll try to add the Short Story and Play categories over the next few days. Any objections? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not from me. You're doing a nice job. Lighting up my watchlist with articles I'd forgotten about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All done! Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - copyediting help

• Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

Hey all - this article is currently at FAC, where it's been suggested to get some additional copyediting help to improve prose. I'd really appreciate any assistance, if anyone's willing to pitch in a bit. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Question re: Category:Literary critics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Category:Literary critics has a large number of members listed, as well as a large number of "by nationality" subcats (American lit crits, Brit lit crits, etc.). Should the individual members be dispersed to the national subcats, so that the main cat remains small, or should everyone in the subcats be listed in the main cat as well, so that names are easier to find (if you don't know their nationality)? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Duplicate - I think the latter, for the reason you mentioned. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• No duplication - The WP guideline Wikipedia:Categorization is pretty clear on this (see "Threded Discussion" below): Nationality is a "diffusing" subcategorization, and hence persons should not be duplicated in both the per-nation category and the top-level category. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• No duplication per Noleander. I'm of the opinion that any navigational benefit in being able to find a name in the specific case that the user knows the name but not the spelling or nationality would be significantly outweighed by how unwieldy the parent category would be if every entry in every one of its subcategories was lumped together. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

That is an excellent question ... but it must arise all the time in various categories. What does the WP guideline Wikipedia:Categorization say on this matter? --Noleander (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked in that guideline, and the guidance is:

"Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Eponymous categories and Non-diffusing subcategories below..."

For example: categories Category:Rivers of Europe and Category:Writers by nationality both follow that rule. On the other hand, an exception is permitted for "non diffusing categories", and that guidance is:

"Not all subcategories serve the "diffusion" function described above; some are simply subsets which have some special characteristic of interest, such as Best Actor Academy Award winners as a subcategory of Film actors, Toll bridges in New York City as a subcategory of Bridges in New York City, and Musical films as a subcategory of Musicals. These are called non-diffusing subcategories. They sometimes provide an exception to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory: there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory. (Of course, if the pages also belong to other subcategories that do cause diffusion, then they will not appear in the parent category directly.)"

So the question is whether the Nationality, for Literary Critics, is diffusing or not: I think that, since Nationality is the primary subcategorization for Literary Crtiics, Nationality is diffusing. Furthermore, dozens of other WP categories seem to follow the rule that Nationality is the primary subcategorization system, and hence they DO NOT repeat the articles. --Noleander (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the questions here is how likely people are to use the Category to search for other critics, and whether the diffusion would make it harder to locate someone by name. If were trying to find the name György Lukács without knowing how it's spelled or what country he's from, would you be able to find him in the diffused category? I'm not sure how often the categories get used for actual research, but this seems to be a case where it might be really useful to keep everyone duplicated. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are asking, but the same could be asked about the hundreds of other Categories throughout WP that categorize by nation: the convention is that a person is only listed in the per-nation Category (not in the top-level Category). Regarding the scenario you describe (a user trying to find György Lukács), I think the WP Search function should work: I typed in "Giorgy Lukas" and it returned "Did you mean György Lukács?" So, that should meet the need you describe. --Noleander (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll try to work on dispersing that category later on in the week. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited everyone who was already in a national cat list so that they are no longer in the main cat. That means everyone remaining in the main cat will need to be dispersed manually. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got that finished for all the nationalities that already had subcats set up. The remaining entries will need to have national subcats created manually. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move categories from Category:Slovene literature to Category:Slovenian literature category

In my opinion, all sub-categories should be moved from Category:Slovene literature to Category:Slovenian literature category. --Averaver (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Formatting of Template:Pulitzer Prize for History

Resolved

I am requesting your feedback at Template talk:PulitzerPrize History#Reformat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Color

Resolved

I have a second issue in need of feedback at Template talk:PulitzerPrize History#Color.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Major and lesser prizes

Does anyone have any information on the relative importance of the various Pulitzers. See here for the discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Split Lit Critics cat into Reviewers and Scholars?

While going through Category:Literary critics, I noticed a wide divergence within the cat between scholarly critics and reviewers (both professional and blogger types). Seeing that another category of Literary Critics has been proposed to be renamed "Literary Scholars," I wonder if we want to divide the Critics category into Scholars and Reviewers. It seems the term critics has two different meanings that I'm not sure belong together in the category. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Don't split - Distinguishing scholars from critics from reviewers seems to be splitting hairs: there is way too much overlap between those three groups. If such a split were done, it is very likely that one year in the future, a merge will be proposed :-) Perhaps there is some broad generic term that encompasses reviewers, critics, and scholars? (I cannot think of one). Or maybe the categories could be named Category:Literary critics and scholars? That may be the simplest, safest solution. Whatever is decided, it should be adopted across all Literary critics/scholars categories for the sake of uniformity. (PS: Aristophanes68: can you provide the link to that proposal to rename a category?) --Noleander (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It just seems odd to me that you have academic critics mixed in with the woman who writes all those reviews for Amazon.com and with people who review genre fiction for trade publications or on their blogs. I notice that there's a subcat for academics--maybe I could simply sort the academics into that category and not double-list them? Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if there is already a subcat for Academics, that may be the way to go. I still maintain that the distinction between a critic & scholar is very, very blurry. The distinction is really based on whether the author of the work being reviewed is alive or dead :-) When reviewing the work of a live author, you are a critic/reviewer; when you review the work of a dead author, you are a scholar. In any case, too blurry to make a big deal out of it. But if the Academic subcat exists, I see no harm in utilizing it. --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As a professional literary academic, I don't think that distinction sounds right. The job of a reviewer is to comment on the quality of a book: is it worth reading or even buying? Critics are less interested in evaluating works than in interpreting them: what do they mean, what are they telling us, why do they do/say what they do, etc. Academics tend to be critics more than reviewers. At least, you don't get tenured if all you do is review books.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A Princess of Mars vs. Moons of Mars

Hey guys, I typically work on film related articles, but a recent confusion over a book-to-movie adaptation had led me here. I'm currently working on the John Carter (film) article, which is an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Princess of Mars. To my knowledge, the book was originally released in 1912 under the title "Moons of Mars." In 1917, the title was changed to A Princess of Mars, but the story remained identical. The publish date is often listed in books as 1912, but I can see why users often reference the release date as 1917. In the John Carter (film) article, we are trying to reference the publishing date, but we are unsure which to use. Which date is correct to use? Thanks.--TravisBernard (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

FLC of List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Chinese books)

Resolved

Hi! I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Chinese books) at featured list candidates and would be very happy if somebody could have a look at it, checking for these criteria and leaving questions/comments/suggestions and possibly a vote (support/oppose) on the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been listed as Nominations urgently needing reviews, meaning that is in danger of failing the nomination because of a lack of reviews. Hopefully somebody will find the time to do a review of it. bamse (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Publishers cited by Wikipedia

A discussion about building a compilation of publishers cited on Wikipedia is going on at WikiProject Books. Since literature and publishing are related, I figured I'd let you know and ask for your participation in this discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanese books National Treasures

Hi! I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books) at featured list candidates and would be very happy if somebody could have a look at it, checking for these criteria and leaving questions/comments/suggestions and possibly a vote (support/oppose) on the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Romance and Drama as redundant genres of Harem

I am hoping to gain some comments from the members of this WikiProject for the RfC at WT:ANIME regarding whether the romance and drama genres should be considered redundant when harem is listed in the infobox, in particular for visual novel articles. Even though visual novel is a type of video game, I figured I should also ask here because the video game genre falls under the Language and literature banner. -- クラウド６６８ 21:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

John Henry (folklore)

Recent edits to John Henry (folklore) cut out any discussion of the folklore/myth, and replace it with vague biographical theories. This clearly misses the point: John Henry is important because of its mythical proporitions, (like Paul Bunyan, etc.) and not because there may have once been a person or two on which the myth might be based. Help on reforming/expanding the article would be appreciated! linas (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Fan fiction writers

I've just tagged this category for this project, and have a question there about its membership. I hope you'll offer input. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in helping writing courses

Hi WikiProject Literature members! The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a number of communications, composition and similar classes for the upcoming term. Students will be assigned to contribute to Wikipedia articles, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in writing/composition to support the classes as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavery system in India is still continuing

Does democratic system of government allows the politicians to accumulate black money in different foreign countries of different nations? What is the democratic form of government? Why rich and financially well established people are representating the parliament or different houses of different nations instead of brainy and talented one,who are not financially sound. Will it develop the economy of any nation or down it. Feudal Lords system is still continuing. People are running after the financially sound people to get some benefit from them because of their poverty. Is it not the slavery systems of the globe,where people have accumulated huge amount of black money by exploiting money from public. To whom we call powerful women or men? It has appeared in the news papers that Sonia is the 7th powerful lady of the world. Why she became more powerful in India when many many talented and educated ladies are available in India having tremendous knowledge like Kiran Vedi-retired Police Officer, Swasama Swaraj and many others. Because, Mr. Sonia Gandhi is financially sound, and her husband has accumulated crores and cores lakhs dollars/rupees in United Bank of Switzer Land, other countries and in India also. Is it justified for a person? This is not in India, in most of the nations, there are corrupt leaders, who accumulate huge amount illegally by exploiting public,causing price inflation and down fall of economy world wide. Are we not able to eradicate corruptions from different nations by making a strict bill in UNO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambhunath Tiadi (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for collaborator

Hello, I just finished a write-up of the short story "Langit Makin Mendung" and I was wondering if anybody would be interested in collaborating with me to bring it to FA. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Strawpoll. How many want to make being on the bestseller's list proof of notability for a book?

Please come participate in the discussion and poll. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Collaborative_fiction

I'm doing some rebuilding at Collaborative_fiction. I'm interested in advice and suggestions. Particularly suggestions for pictures. Also could someone fill out the 'class' and 'importance' fields for me? I'm not familiar with project guidelines. AdamCaputo (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Gothic fiction

Is it just me or do large chucks of this read like an essay. For an example look at the first sentence in the section on Shakespeare:

The connections between Shakespeare and Gothic fiction may not be directly obvious upon first consideration; yet, the Gothic genre of literature has been influenced to a great extent by Shakespearean characters and themes, as well as by Shakespeare’s own personal views and beliefs.

That doesn't feel encyclopedic to me. Thoughts? Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Article nomination.

Hi all, I nominated Collaborative Fiction for a GA review and it's slipping down the list with no love [3] - anybody fancy a review? AdamCaputo (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)