Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NOV)
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed deletion of December 7, 1941: A Different Path[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article December 7, 1941: A Different Path has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A work by a non-notable author (no article); the article has been tagged Unreferenced since 2010. No RS sources to confirm notability can be found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Lois Lowry- New Taskforce?[edit]

Who agrees that we should have a new taskforce concerning Lois Lowry's books? I mean, two of them have Newberry Medal awards. KangisLOL (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1945 (Gingrich and Forstchen novel)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article 1945 (Gingrich and Forstchen novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article tagged Unreferenced since 2014; no RS to confirm notability can be found

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Novel sales[edit]

Is there a reliable way to find the number of copies that a particular book has sold? I've been struggling through unhelpful web sources for a while now. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I find sales numbers occasionally in reviews by Publishers Weekly, or in news articles at the time a book comes out and is very successful, or is late in a successful series. Other than that, I have not found where the publishing industry keeps its sales figures. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. I'll do a search for things from Publisher's Weekly. It's such an odd thing, though, you would expect publishers to keep better track. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, sales figures are most accurately collected through Nielsen BookScan. I don't know where you access the info, though. maclean (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I did try that; but it seems that their charts are protected by a paywall, which I'm not currently willing to invest in. If somebody happens to have access, that would be great. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It depends on the title, when it was first published, whether it's been republished in other format/s (i.e softcover/paperback) and so on. Sometimes the first edition print runs can be found and info about which formats. But the sales numbers aren't generally available. Victoria (tk) 11:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The Wray interview (already cited in the article) has her describing how she is in a higher rank than other authors she names, but no numbers. If that pay wall cannot be broken at a library, this may be difficult. When she dies, her obituaries may indicate sales in addition to her impact on other authors and her jumping about in genres, acceptance as a literary writer. So far, sales are not included in her interviews, as sometimes happens with an author. Publishers Weekly reviewed her 1969 novel in 2000, noting her awards, but no comment on sales. You could see if her novels ever made the best-seller lists. That still will not give you sales of a novel out since 1969, but it might indicate the relative size of her audience. I am thinking of Patrick O'Brian, writer of historical fiction, for whom sales totals were revealed in the year of his death and then the large increase in 2004 to 6 millon sold noted by Publishers Weekly, reviewing his last book published posthumously. The sales of one volume were not revealed, it was the series of 21 novels in whole that was quoted. Alexander McCall Smith, still living, had an abrupt increase in sales when his series, The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency was published in the USA as well as by UK publishers. Huge increase, fan sensation, reviews by famous people, are words easy to find, but no numbers come with those words. Sales of books written by Agatha Christie are estimated at 2 billion. Your question piques my interest, because the best seller lists presume someone has access to sales data week by week. The ranks are published but not the sales volume. Someone must be aggregating the weekly sales, if only to pay the author their royalties. How secret are those numbers? --Prairieplant (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; this is actually useful because it confirms a hunch I had. I've been trawling through interviews as well, and I'll probably keep doing that; but given my current location I'm not likely to get past a paywall anytime soon. Thanks anyhow! Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, its quite rare to publish sales numbers outside of internal materials, unless it used for marketing. The publishing industry's sense of scales (10s of thousands of books is quite a success), frequently seems disproportionate to the impact that works have (especially as the internet and novelistic television series have become more popular). Like Prairieplant, my best point of reference is usually dead folks, and claims being made by reporters or academics about those dead folks. If you look back before the 40s and 50s, I am pretty sure that publication/print run information is more common, but you probably have to dig into local newspaper archives -- which are always hit or miss. I find the Unsworth Bestsellers database to be really useful, but scope of coverage is very limited -- and is only worked on when Unsworth has graduate classes about book history. Its a very nice source though: its edited book histories, compiled by graduate students. Sadads (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't contain the book I'm working on now, but that is an excellent resource, thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Curse Workers series[edit]

Hi everyone - I am working on sprucing up the Curse Worker's series by Holly Black (stumbled upon them one day, and as Wiki-things go, they pulled me in, wanting to improve them a bit). In any case, I am starting with White Cat by adding a reception section to the article. My question then is this, as I haven't really worked on book articles before: are there any particular places that the project looks for good critical reviews? I have pasted a few in my sandbox, but I am not sure if these will pass muster, as some of them seem a bit bloggy... In any case, any guidance provided will be of much help! I've also posted this question at WT:BOOKS. -Pax Verbum 02:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I look for fiction reviews on Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and major newspapers. Library Journal reviews young adult fiction, too, marking it as such. In doing a google search, I have found I need to name each editorial review source or newspaper, along with title and author name, to find a review if one was written. Possibly that is because I do not have a subscription to newspapers.com, but I have found that newspaper archives do keep moving about. Blogs are not considered as reliable sources for reviews, in general. Sometimes I find reviews that have been published elsewhere, reprinted on the author's homepage (author of the review) with full citation information. I work on articles by some British authors, but I never can get hold of a review from The Times or any other newspaper in the British Isles. Not sure why that is. I hope that some enterprising Britain-based Wikipedia editors will find a way to fill that need. I know the British press does the reviews, as blurbs from them are so often on the book covers. Have fun fixing those articles. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pax85: Maybe half a year ago, I updated Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Finding_sources to reflect the best practices that I am aware of including the most useful sources from The Wikipedia Library (which you should apply for). Most of the time a simple google search, with the author name and title will find a number of the newspaper reviews that Prarieplant mentions. The first three links you have in the sandbox are probably good -- since they have a very good reputation in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy communities. I highly recommend getting WP:EBSCO since they frequently have sources like Voice of Youth Advocate indexed, which willl have at least a couple short reviews. Sadads (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both! This is exceedingly helpful. I've been considering applying to the library for a while now. I guess it's time to do it... -Pax Verbum 16:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Left Hand of Darkness at FAC[edit]

The Left Hand of Darkness, a well-known science-fiction novel, is at FAC. The review page is here. Additional input would be welcomed. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 1:06 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

CfD nomination of Category:Lesbian novels and Category:Transgender and transsexual novels[edit]

Information.svg

Category:Lesbian novels has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Category:Transgender and transsexual novels has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four locations has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four locations, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for upmerging to Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

NEA big read[edit]

Folks, what are current opinions regarding [1] as a source? I'm not convinced about its reliability, but I want to be sure before I disregard it. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It is the NEA/Arts Midwest and it was designed for use in the classroom alongside reading groups at librariess, so I would expect at least a minimum level of expertise and quality in the production of the source. Typically government/non-profit-produced teaching tools are designed by educators -- so its likely fairly good for what it is. How much you pull from it though, might be another question: minimally it verifies the work was part of the Big Read, and can help sketch and confirm some of the themes and/or give you high level articulations of them. I don't know how much "new" information I would pull from it however, in terms of production and background on the work. But if the page hints at this information, I would try to confirm it in interviews or research by other more journalistic sources. Sadads (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Sadads. I was looking at in the context of writing about a book that had an entry there, and was wondering if I needed to give it any weight, so your answer is helpful. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Help with an article?[edit]

I'm going to post this in a few places just so it gets a good amount of people looking at the article in question. The article for Animal World, the first published book by Antonio di Benedetto, is up for deletion. It looks like there should be coverage out there, as there is mention here and there about the book getting various accolades including a national prize, but I can't really find much. This is partially because of the language barrier, as most coverage is going to be in Spanish, but it's also likely because most of the coverage predated the Internet and as such may not be on the Internet as a whole or in places that we'd all know to check.

Anyone here want to see what they can find? It might be a good chance for a WP:HEY rescue. (I promise that this is the last forum I'll post this at. It's just that I don't want this to get deleted if it's possible that it could be notable.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From the deletion nominator: it would be nice if someone could look through the rest of User:Wolfboy21's articles as well. It appears that in 2004 he was an editor at Xenos Books, and created extremely subpar articles (by our 2016 standards, that is) for the books they published. Most of them don't look notable to me based on a cursory search, but from the AfD, I don't trust even my deep searching any more. Thanks, ansh666 04:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ansh666 and Tokyogirl79: Did a quick look at it -- quality is not a justication for deletion: its a justification for revision. AFD is a process for establishing Notability, and the scholarship is a pretty clear indication of that. Sadads (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Make more use in infobox of preceded by/followed by for authors with multiple books[edit]

Can it be advised to editors to make more use of the parameters preceded by and followed by in the infobox for books by the same author? I have seen the feature used on articles about books by one author that are not a series. I find it helpful, even when the article has a template with all the articles about the author or the books written by the author down at the end of the article, and never thought it was for series only, rather to link to the next book published by that author. Now that I use a mobile phone on occasion to read articles, the feature in the infobox shows up and can be used to navigate to the prior or next book by that author. Those handy templates do not appear on the mobile version. A point for discussion, as another editor keeps undoing the links in the articles on the six novels by Jane Austen, saying that only a series can use that feature. I posted this question at Wikiproject Books, as well. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)