WikiProject Novels

The WikiProject
Project page	talk
Members	talk
Guestbook	talk
Coordinators	talk
→ Current or Recent Elections	+ talk
JobCentre	talk
Announcements (template)	talk
Literature Portal	talk
Article information
Popular Pages	talk
Resources	talk
Style guidelines	talk
→ Article (pattern template)	talk
→ Char. Article (pattern template)	talk
→ Book infobox (pattern)	talk
→ Short Story infobox (pattern)	talk
→ NovelSeries infobox (pattern)	talk
→ Character infobox (pattern)	talk

Current discussions
General discussion forum (+)	talk
Novel categorization	talk

Work in progress
Main work list	talk
Maintenance lists	talk
Disputed novel articles	talk
Disputed book cover images	talk
Articles needed	talk
Infobox needed	talk
Infobox Incomplete	talk
New articles	talk

Departments
Assessment	talk
→ Assessment Top priority	talk
Collaboration	talk
Outreach	talk
Peer review	talk

Task forces
19th century task force	talk
39 Clues task force	talk
Australian task force	talk
CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force	talk
Chronicles of Narnia task force	talk
Crime task force	talk
Fantasy task force	talk
Harry Potter task force	talk
His Dark Materials task force	talk
Lemony Snicket task force	talk
Military fiction task force	talk
Napoleonic fiction work group (military)	talk
Rick Riordan task force	talk
Science fiction task force	talk
Shannara task force	talk
Short story task force	talk
Sword of Truth task force	talk
Twilight task force	talk
Roald Dahl task force	talk
Diary of a Wimpy Kid task force	talk

Templates
Project banner	talk
Infobox Book (protected)	talk
Infobox Short story	talk
Infobox character	talk
Infobox Novel series	talk
Userboxes	talk

• changes

Documentation

For discussion of the project membership list

Hi, how do I join this? Iris Medallion (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Web novels

are web novels considered novels? even though they are published a chapter at a time? Avyfain 08:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes - as long as they are narrative prose, the only thing is they are notoriously difficult to establish notability for. They must be notable to appear here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, 3 to 6 months would be OK.

Alphabetizing the list

How about alphabetizing the list on user names? The only objection would be the loss of 'seniority' but this is retained by the 'joined...' statement. Alphabetizing seems sensible. I'll do it if there is a consensus as I've done it at another projects participant list to good effect. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive members

I purged the list of inactive members. Unfortnately, this meant active members went from 295 to 191. The inactive list grew from 8 to 111. Thus, the project has lost 104 members who have left Wikipedia; or at least no longer edit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So! you just went ahead and did it anyway! Nice consultation process. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was bold. I did ask about alphabetizing the list and no reply. My experience is that a lot of projects are kind of moribund so I am impressed that there are people active at the novels project. Anyway, this isn't the first project I've been involved in in terms of maintenance. As for monitoring for inactive members, no one has been doing that for over a year. I found some 104 inactive members on the list; some inactive from early 2006. Generally, it is more convenient to use an alphabetized list. The 'joined on...' dates have little relevance to whether a member is active or not. Some members who joined recently are not active on Wikipedia at all. The list now is more reflective of reality. For example, here is an example of a member who joined in Oct 2007 and the editor's only edit - repeat: the only edit on Wikiepedia - was to join the project [1]. Such a member is not actively contributing to the project. Obviously, I'm willing to do some project maintenance here and there. I also fixed some templates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive????

If the last action above was bold the current review looks to be like a nuclear detonation by comparison. To stay in this project appears to involve great effort. I question the wisdom of this approach although agreeing with the motivation which I take to be keeping the list to those genuinely taking part. We should be able to identify anyone who wishes to be associated and is active anytime in "maybe" a 6 month period. We could well be "hacking off" those we should be encouraging. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you might notice "Brand New" members are adding themselves as "incumbent" rather than active. Do they mean that they are signing up to be active (i.e. not a guestbook entry) and then instantly deciding not the be truely active. Somehow I don't think so. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that several new members have been confused. Boylo and I decided that a project roll call (similar to what WP:FILM is currently doing) would help pinpoint how many of our several hundred "members" are in fact currently active. A notice is about to be sent to all of those currently listed under "Incumbent", in which users will be encouraged to move their names to the "Active members" list if they are still taking part. Hopefully this notice will be sent out shortly after the current newsletter, which also mentions the roll call. Therefore, there is no "hacking off"; I think by determining how many active participants we have will be very helpful and aid us in the future as far as planning goes. If you have any suggestions, we'd love to hear them! María (habla conmigo) 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the wish to update the list of active members so as to see at a glance who has not left the project altogether, I'm not quite sure about the "incumbent" category. Does this categorisation solely depend on each participant's perception of himself/herself? If I haven't edited (created?) an article about a novel for, say, a month or two, where do I belong? <K F> 03:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Incumbent" will soon become "Inactive" once the members list updating has slowed down. Inactive members have less to do with an editor's output and more to do with their participation within the project; even if you haven't edited a novel article in a while, if you still consider yourself a part of WP:NOVELS, then I would say you are (or intend to be) an active member. María (habla conmigo) 12:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, I wasn't so much thinking about myself—bold as I am, I moved my name to the active members list before editing this talk page—as of others who may be slightly confused or even discouraged when they (erroneously) believe they have been fired from the project. So I hope reading these questions and answers here will help them see things the way they are intended. Thanks again, <K F> 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is looking as though I might have to eat humble pie - the Roll Call is going well so far! However I do echo KFs concerns about being labeled inactive, especially if the editor "is" active on wikipedia but hasn't edited "in project" for a while. We do need to do all we can not to discourage editors! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the inactive-within-the-project users should just be removed from the members page all together after the roll call has slowed down. No need to keep their names listed if we are not going to contact them, etc. We are wiping the slate clean. María (habla conmigo) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an active member of the project (well, sort of) and don't get the newsletter. I don't remember checking a box or anything about it when I joined, but I definitely do want to get it now. How would I go about fixing that? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]