Jump to content

Talk:Book series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Category talk:Novel sequences#Rename to avoid confusion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scholarly

[edit]

I have started a separate article for them, Monographs in series, the usual library name., and made a ref. from the good short description here. DGG 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal monographs in series to book series

[edit]

A merge was suggested. The topics are separate--the book series discussed in that articles are volumes one following another on the same subject. Monographs in series are volumes published under a single overall title, but on a variety of separate subject. Book series are found in all sort of popular and academic and technical fields--a great many of them are novels. M in S are essentially always an academic mode of production, that verges onto being a series of separate but large single-topic journal issues. M in S, in particular, are usually handled by Web of Science and Scopus and Chem abstracts etc etc as if they were journalsDGG (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merger is not called for here, and that monograph series (in the non-fiction/scholarly sense) are easily significant enough and quite distinct from general book series. Monograph series are most usually catalogued as such by various library systems, for eg. Am removing the merge tag. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable series

[edit]

This section, at the moment, is simply a laundry list|. Any list MUST have some explanation as to what should and should not be listed. Using the word "notable" doesn't count either unless you define what notability is for a book series! For example, what makes the Pee-Wee Harris series (I picked that randomly; I'm not picking on it) a notable series, more so than others not listed? Better yet, what makes the numerous series listed here that don't have a corresponding article stand out above, say, all those Star Trek, Star Wars and Buffy the Vampire Slayer series that each take up entire bookcases at bookstores and libraries? Or His Dark Materials, or the Earth's Children series, or the Sookie Stackhouse/The Southern Vampire Mysteries...? These are just examples I'm pulling from one page of one category; if I sat down and thought about it, there'd be so many more. Some examples on this list (Sherlock Holmes, Narnia, Harry Potter, Twilight) may seem obvious, but there's no such thing on Wikipedia. You have to prove it. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a directory, guidebook, soapbox or indiscriminate collection of info, there isn't a purpose to this list at all. In fact, barring the fact that this is an embedded list, this list is a perfect example of a list that is too broad and therefore has little value. So, either firm criteria has to be set for this list (even 1 criterion would be something), or it should be removed altogether. Given all of the above, and despite my Inclusionist philosophy, I vote for getting rid of it altogether. I've removed some of the more ridiculous entries already, and may remove it completely in due time if no reasonable objections have been raised. — Skittleys (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes on list criteria, if you really want to make this work:
  • The standard of "notability" can't be the baseline. Every series with an article on Wikipedia has to meet that standard.
  • Some factors that might work:
    • A series really needs to have made some sort of impact on society or literature as we know it. See below for what this doesn't mean.
    • I think the "I don't know it" argument does apply here, though any person making that argument has to have had significant exposure to the English-language literary world, and probably some education in English literature (I mean like Grade 9 English, not university)
    • Years may also work as a criterion that makes a series acceptable but that doesn't necessarily have to be met. For example, there's clearly something great about a series that's been around for over 80 years (like the Hardy Boys; NO, I'm not being biased, I've never even read them). A series that has survived multiple generations—heck, that one's outlived the average person!—is notable (by this list's standards) for that reason alone. Age can't be a necessary criterion, though, because it eliminates set-limit series (I don't know if there's an actual term for that, but what I mean is that a series can't be knocked off just because it's a trilogy and by necessity was written in a span of under 10 years). Note that age and number of books are absolutely NOT the same thing.
  • Some factors may make a book more known, but shouldn't be on the list.
    • "It was made into a movie" is a perfect example of an unacceptable criterion, because there are thousands of series that have been made into movies.
    • "It has over x books" also clearly doesn't work. Twilight had only 4 books, and Harry Potter had only 7, but these series have had a massive impact (see the articles if you think I'm being biased)
    • "It was written by x"—so? Notability is not inherited. Being written by x may meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia, but we're talking about an embedded list here. The series has to be (hugely) notable in its own right.
    • "It won awards"—there are so many different awards out there, so a standard for awards would need to be set. Plus, a book or series usually wins an award based on ingenuity, etc., which does not necessarily make it encyclopaedic. Again, that may be the standard for WP:NOTE, but we're talking about an embedded list.
  • IMHO, of what's on this list, here's what belongs (if you want an explanation for these ones, ask): Sherlock Holmes, Bobbsey Twins, the first series of Tom Swift (not all of them), Tarzan, Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, The Famous Five (which I'd never even heard of, but I'm now convinced), Narnia, Harry Potter, Twilight
  • And here's what I thought would belong in the beginning, but I've changed my mind on: Lord Peter Wimsey (see my reasons for Poirot below, but consider that this character is much less popular; I know nothing about the series, but the only part of the article that suggests inclusion is that he is the archetype for the British gentleman detective); Biggles (popular, but no massive impact); Foundation series (is the series itself a HUGE deal, or just the author behind it?); Bond (the book series isn't actually a big deal; Bond is a household name based on the movies); Dune (again, for a subject this broad, a series has to have a tremendous impact, and not just in media...); Ender series (very popular, but not a big impact); Berenstain Bears; Baby-sitters Club;
  • And I'm on the fence about: the Oz books (it's really not so much the series that's made a tremendous impact as it is the universe); Poirot (it is the character himself that sets apart these books, and would definitely merit a top position in a list of famous characters...); Discworld; Redwall; Magic School Bus; A Series of Unfortunate Events
I'll finish explanations later...— Skittleys (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that you could put the list back like it was before? If not, and if you're going to "completely remove it", could you at least put up a list that satisfies your standards? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.7.221 (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a website that shows a definite list of all the books series out there? I'm just curious. Drunkenpeter99 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________

I heartily agree with Skittleys. So much that I took the bold step of removing the list from the article. I have included the deletion below in the case that someone really wants to work on it. Feel free to take it and make it work. I do believe though that it does not meet Wikipedia standards as is.

--Lexandalf (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable book series

[edit]

{{cleanup-list|date=October 2009}}{{list dispute|date=October 2009}}{{Multiple issues|section=y|examplefarm=October 2009|laundry=October 2009}}

Fiction

[edit]

These are listed in the order of their publication debut. (Some of these series started in magazines before books.)

Scholarly and academic

[edit]
See also: Monographs in series

Publisher Series

[edit]

Cycle

[edit]

I have seen some books referred to as a part of a "cycle". Is that a synonym for a series or is there a difference? For example: File:DarkForce_Rising.jpg --Mika1h (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a synonym. Might imply a sequence. Book cycle does not exist yet and novel cycle redirects to novel sequence which I proposed for merging here below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Short story cycle may shed some additional light. Colintedford (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Novel sequence

[edit]

I don't believe those two concepts are independenty notable, and significantly different to warrant separate articles. At best, one could argue that a sequence is, well, sequential and a series doesn't have to be. But it is doubtful this difference is significant enough to warrant separate articles. That said, I do think it's ok to have separate categories as we have now - here's the analysis of the related category tree: the one and only category for novel sequence was Category:Novel series, which states that the main article for its category is here (book series - further proof this is the same concept, really, as far as articles go). I just corrected that to display category Category:Novel sequences instead. Novel series is a redirect to here. Book sequence article does not exist even as a redirect. Note that it is fine to have separate category for Category:Series of books (not all books are novels), Category:Novel series and Category:Novel sequences, since categories can help to distinguish between series and sequences. But we don't need two articles about series vs sequences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree SpiritedMichelle (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kats series

[edit]

kats series is a series of groups, games, and art. Parts of Kats series are: Kats Gc (ver 4.3),The lost group (also known as invatations) Kats star, and Kats pack. To be in Kats Gc, you must have a Kats symbol 161.0.240.179 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_series&oldid=1200259664"