Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Navboxes and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL[edit]

Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements regarding consensus for WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

International titles of books[edit]

I have been doing a bit of copy editing on Agatha Christie book pages and have noticed a few oddities in the International titles sections of those pages. 1) How literal should the translations be? For example, on Mrs McGinty's Dead we see "French: Mrs McGinty est morte (Mrs McGinty is Dead)" and "Portuguese (Portugal): ... Mrs McGinty está Morta (Mrs McGinty's Dead)". Both of those would literally translate as "Mrs McGinty is Dead", but there is no difference in meaning between that and "Mrs McGinty's Dead". Should we leave them as the literal translations or not? 2) How should we style the translation of the title? Do we use the language in question's standards for title capitalization or the English standards? For example, on Curtain (novel) we see "French : Poirot quitte la scène (Poirot leaves the stage/Poirot gives up the stage)" using the French capitalization rules for the English translation and "Hungarian: Függöny (Poirot utolsó esete) (Curtain [Poirot's Last Case])" using the English rules for the English translation.--Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As this is the English language Wikipedia and these are novels written in the English language, the international translations are irrelevant. Section should be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Had thought of that myself, but figured that consensus was to have them. I was just trying to make them not look a mess. If the consensus is get rid of them, I have no problem slashing and burning them myself. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't find a specific reference in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate doesn't include this section. I think it's akin to the TV series not showing international broadcasts for non English language countries, per WP:TVINTL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm making a start. The only exception I can think of so far is And Then There Were None as it is of interest how different countries dealt with the racist language. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Although, even that one could probably be cleaned up and tightened up a little. I've started with Sleeping Murder and begun working backwards chronologically. I have gotten as far back as Sparkling Cyanide. After the novels, I will move on to the short story collections and so on. --Khajidha (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I started forward chronologically, so we'll probably meet in the middle somewhere! Any truly notable translations can be mentioned in the "Publication history" sections. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we've done them all now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The work of so many Agatha Christie editors undone in an hour or two by the decision of two editors. One of the intriguing aspects of her novels is their popularity worldwide in English and in translation. Sales of her novels and short stories are so very high because of the worldwide appeal when they were written and continuing now, decades after the author died. Such a big decision made by two editors and it seems to be based on the titles being re-translated to English, a rather minor issue. My concern about the titles was no editor gave an ISBN for any title, though the books are reprinted in the era of ISBN. A full web site is compiled with the titles of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series in various languages and linked to that article in the Publication History section (at this moment it is Ref number 27), as an example of a better treatment of showing the appeal of a novel written initially in English, to people who speak other languages. The Cadfael Chronicles, a series of 21 novels by Ellis Peters, were often translated to other languages. The Publication history section of each novel shows the titles in other languages, with ISBN or at least publisher, again showing the reach of the series, novel by novel. All three examples before us are British authors with an appeal beyond Britain, beyond the English speaking nations, to people who do not speak English, not reading the English version as a way to learn English. I think that is noteworthy, as not many authors have that appeal. Before you toss out all that work collecting the titles, you might consider collecting them in another Wikipedia article showing the extent of the worldwide popularity, and letting those who have mystery novels in languages other than English to organize them and find ISBN if they exist. Or open up the topic on the Talk page of each novel. Here is a third editor with a different view. I reverted the first article I encountered with the section blanking by Khajidha, expressing my views then in brief. Here they are fleshed out. I will not revert, knowing you believe the discussion above to be your authority and basis to alter all the articles on her novels. It would be nice to hear other voices on this. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that what the links in the sidebar to the other language wikis are for? --Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies, see also the essay WP:TOOMUCH. I don't see any problem with saying The novel has been translated into over xx languages, including... (properly sourced of course), but to list the translation to non-English titles is irrelevant. You could do the same on every article you can think of. Does it say on the Star Wars article that the film was released as La Guerre des Etoiles in French etc, etc? It's simply irrelevant and unencyclopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Robsinden and Khajidha: you are being a little bit overzealous here: Listing translations makes sense in Publication history sections, but leads only need to include the number of translations--- just like there is value including lists of all of the reprints/editions of a work in a Publication history section. For some authors, even, there is a worthwhile deep conversation about the topic, for example Harry_Potter_in_translation --- similarly there are whole bodies of scholarship that look at these elements of publication history (for example, ). There is no reason not to include this information: there is just room for making sure the weight isn't too heavy in the lead. Remember, we are WP:NOTPAPER, and some authors with international popularity, need to discuss that global perspective --- which includes multilingual publishing, Sadads (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. The publication history is good for notable English-language printings, but do we really need to know the foreign language titles that The Secret of Chimneys has been translated into? Should we add something to The Prisoner of Zenda (to pick a random example) that lists how the title is translated as de:Der Gefangene von Zenda in German and ja:ゼンダ城の虜 in Japanese? How are these translations notable or worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedia, unless the translations are controversial and have been discussed elsewhere. And we shouldn't be encouraging this in a list form, this should be a prose discussion of the titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This damage has been done to articles on Agatha Christie novels, where editors have added these lists over the years I have been an editor on a constant basis. You were reverted in one of your section blankings, by an editor who put their disagreement reason in the reversion comment. Though you have so far conceded nothing to other viewpoints, I hope you see this is the sort of action to post for discussion first. Not everyone agrees with you. Robsinden how will you get the count of translations if there is no list to back up the count? If you want to add the international titles of books by other authors, I say go ahead and do it. But that is a diversion from the topic at hand. The list on the left side of the article page tells one of the other versions of Wikipedia where an article was written on the same topic. It is not quite the same thing as the International titles section you have blanked. My own suggestion is to revert all your section blankings, make sure the International titles section is moved to be part of Publication history, and ask editors to include the ISBN if they can. I am amazed that you were not fascinated to learn that there are usually two Portuguese translations, one for the language spoken in Portugal and another for the patois in Brazil. Or that Iranians read her novels. In short, I agree with Sadads: overzealous. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
You get the count of translations from reliable sources about such things. Biographies and book blurbs for novelists often include such data. Considering that neither the novel MOS nor the novel Article Template covers such lists, it seems to me that there was no consensus for them to be there in the first place. Just because work has been done, doesn't mean that that work has to stay. An encyclopedic value must be demonstrated for such lists if they are to be included. The bare fact of a translated title is of no use to the understanding of the book. --Khajidha (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Khajidha: Neither the MOS or the template are actively updated or discussed since at least 2012: they are not firm policy documents, and it doesn't mean that there are not appropriate reasons to list the translations of works. Moreover, if the MOS and the template don't have something: it just means that they aren't considered standard: it doesn't mean that local consensus shouldn't be used to determine if we include the item. Having information about the publisher, ISBN, title of the translation and translator are all within scope -- just as having lists of editions is within scope of all of our other Publication history sections: many of English Wikipedia's readers are not English language first, so there will be general interest will be in discovery of multilingual items. Rampant removal of non-trivia sections, that don't have consensus as being extra-ordinary, seems like very poor behavior without first achieving local consensus, and is quite consistent with Robsinden's other unfortunate zeal around navboxes and other templates. We shouldn't be removing the titles; instead we should be trying to find reliable sources to cite the information -- as it is non-controversal information, that doesn't defame the work--- so that we can support our readers in effectively engaging with the works we are documenting, Sadads (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
"removal of non-trivia sections"? These sections are trivial. As for "discovery of multilingual items", I stand by my point about the sidebar links.--Khajidha (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Khajidha: Most of these books are not going to have articles in other language Wikipedia's --- simply because English is bigger and makes up ~ 1/2 of all language traffic --- and there are many language reading communities that use English Wikipedia first (for example, Afrikaans's speakers were recently the subject of a study by the WMF, and were found to not use Dutch or Afrikaans Wikipedia, but English, even if their english was very poor). Having the full publication information of translations is relevant AND encyclopedic, because it provides a common knowledge foundation for talking about the books international scope and impact. Sadads (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It really is non-encyclopedic trivial information. Lee Child's Without Fail is known as Livvakten in Swedish. Ian Fleming's You Only Live Twice is known as Żyje się tylko dwa razy in Polish. So what. That a novel has been translated into multiple languages and has a wide readership is pertinent information. What it has been translated to is not, unless the translated title has been discussed elsewhere as the point of some controversy or linguistic interest. But this is generally not the case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Robsinden and Khajidha: I proposed an alternative that has not received a reaction. Your points are repeated: non-English language titles are trivial in an article about an Agatha Christie novel, and I hear that, I know you have asserted this. I also hear the point strange to me that the actual proof of a translation is of no value to you, unless it was controversial. You have cited lots of WP articles, none of which apply, as I read them. Do you hear my alternative approach to draw out the ISBN, publisher, other verifying data, as a way to add substance to the lists, and allow an intro paragraph about the appeal of the novels beyond English language speakers? Other editors may have access to books listing the translated titles. Sales of Agatha Christie's books are still tallied on the official website, an aggregate for all her books, (behind the Bible and Shakespeare, over a billion, they say) so someone must be keeping track. Can you consider this proposal? --Prairieplant (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You mention Shakespeare. You will note that on the Romeo and Juliet page, it doesn't say that it is known as Romeo at Julieta in Tagalog or Romeo ir Džuljeta in Lithuanian. With or without ISBN and publisher information, adding lists of translations to titles other than English is too much detail for the English-language Wikipedia, unless those titles themselves are particularly notable. And even if they are notable, they should then be discussed in prose. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
And, as a post-script, I think the publication histories probably already go into a little too much detail. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The number of translations should be easily sourceable to her official website, or her publisher's website, or the blurbs on her books. Such places often have notices such as "{insert author name here} has published 37 books that have been translated into 98 different languages". That is all that is needed to show that her books have appeal beyond the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Robsinden It seems odd that the section blanking continues, citing this discussion as if it were authority to do it. Perhaps a pause is in order. There is not agreement here. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The default position is removal: WP:BURDEN says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Opera hat (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Opera hat The issue was not reliable sources, as brought up. It is whether languages other than English are worthy of discussion in an article on a novel by a British author. It seems like you gave so much weight to one side of this discussion, without addressing the underlying differences of view. It is simple enough, if we agree that other languages, translation of books by a British author to other languages is important, to begin the project to add ISBN proving the books are real, and seek out articles mentioning the translations. For Agatha Christie that is easy to do, as the official website for her claims that half or one billion, of the sales of her novels, are in translation. She is claimed to be the most-translated author, and best-selling, after the Bible and Shakespeare. These things are stated in the Wikipedia article on Agatha Christie as well. Neither the official website nor the Wikipedia article on the author include the translations of all of her writings; that seems most appropriate in the article on each novel or short story collection. It is not pleasant that one editor can undo so much effort by so many other editors in a day, and be supported for a wholly different reason than the one given. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
You are assuming that such a list is appropriate for this site at all. As you've said, we already cite that she is the most-translated and best-selling author and that her translated sales number over a billion copies. Those are facts, those are relevant. How is a list of translated titles of books anymore relevant to the book page than a list of translations of the word aeroplane would be to the aeroplane article? --Khajidha (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't have put it better myself. Unless the translated title is notable in itself (a case which could be argued for Ten Little Indians) and the subject of third party coverage, then it is just trivial information that does not belong. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Prairieplant: I don't have an opinion on whether these lists should be included or not. You asked why the section blanking was continuing, and I gave you a reason: unsourced content can be boldly removed without discussion. If the lists of foreign-language titles are sourced, as you suggest they can be, this discussion becomes relevant again. Opera hat (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No need to repeat what you said above Khajidha and Robsinden. I understand your views. Sorry we have not made much mutual progress in this discussion. Lists are often needed to prove the total, but I am beginning to think you two would eliminate all 'List of' articles or subsections in Wikipedia. List of award winners? Translation is not my big point here, but it is yours. The list is my big point, a list of books translated from one English original. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Straw man. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, what value does such a list actually have? How is "list of other language titles for book x" any different from "list of words in other languages for item y"? --Khajidha (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Khajidha: Because lists of translations are a standard part of the publication history of a work, and an indication of its cross-cultural penetration. Take for example the professional database for 20th-Century American Best Sellers: its a standard section in documenting its publication history: . Wikipedia book articles are about the work itself, and the work changes when it is translated into a new version of the original work (more than publication histories) --- this is an encylcopedic and scholarly topic, that should be documented with reliable sources (and quite frankly, is easy to do so with RS sources). I think we have hit a point of Wikipedia:NOCONSENSUS, lets stop trying to make a blanket policy which can be liberally applied, but do it article by article (thus you can't just blanket remove information editors have already found useful to include). Sadads (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
That links to a professional database, this is an encyclopedia. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. Where are these translated titles discussed in a scholarly manner? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And to draw a similar parallel, see The Sum of All Fears at, listing all the translated titles of that film around the world, something it would also not be appropriate to emulate at The Sum of All Fears (film). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Opera hat Thanks for the clarification. In the article reverted by another editor, I moved the international titles into the Publication history section and used World Cat to find the publisher, translator if known, ISBN and year. I also deleted the title repeated in English -- that is, just the translated title is there. I wrote an introduction for the list with citations taken from the main article on Agatha Christie. Further, in the Edit version, the HTML that most editors will see (is that true, or is the visual editor still used a lot?) with a request to any editor adding a translated title to provide the necessary information in addition to the title. I think that editors who see the list now includes translator, publisher, cit, year, ISBN will follow suit. Further, I put an item in the talk page for the article. I did not find every translation at World Cat, so the notes to editors ask them to fill in the existing list as they can. If no documentation is found after some time (when more have read the article) then those unsourced translations can be handled. I think that is a reasonable way to do this. Sadads Yes, we have no consensus, so I understand that this is not a policy for articles about novels, but to be handled case by case. I read that entry for a best-seller -- all the information for a really well-written Wikipedia article on that novel. Plus an effort to explain, why is this novel a best seller? Thanks for pointing out that source. Khajidha and Robsinden, I read all you posted, find the last additions to be repeating your points. You might appreciate that I removed the re-translations of the foreign language titles that seemed to offend you in the start of this section, in the one article where I added source information. I hope this is clear and closed for now. I appreciate the discussion, learning much. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

We repeated our points because you haven't answered them. Rob mentioned several policies that indicate that this is not something Wikipedia should be doing. And you haven't shown how this is different from listing translations for article titles. --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Although I don't believe we should list each language it has been released in the form of a table or bullet point. It is worthy of mentioning within the English Wikipedia without any issues. Uzumaki for example does exactly that without feeling like "too much". Lucia Black (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create an infobox for fictional conflicts[edit]

I am proposing that an infobox be created for fictional conflicts, as currently many articles on fictional conflicts, as well as a real-time virtual battle, use Template:Infobox military conflict. To centralize discussion, please reply, if interested, at the infobox talk page I've linked to here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

help with Millennium (series)[edit]

This series an it's individual articles have the ability to being all GA articles, even FA. There's plenty of sources but each time I want to edit, I get lost in what I want to fix. Its mostly need of condensing some plot and reorganizing info. Lucia Black (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lucia Black: There are many, many different articles that have the ability (and ease) to reach GA -- and FA takes a certain type of flair and expertise from an editor. However, the biggest deficit in getting articles to those levels of coverage, is the commitment of an editor to spending the time to make that happen. For the Millenium Series: there is a clear audience -- I would love to see these articles get improved. If you would like, I would be happy to do the GA and/or a Peer review to help identify gaps/feedback, etc. Sadads (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
sounds good. I'll accept any help I can get. I'm sure we can work it out. Lucia Black (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Hero", "Heroine" and "Heroism"[edit]

The usage and naming for Hero and Heroism and Heroine is under discussion, see talk:hero -- (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jesse Haynes[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Haynes Joeykai (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)