Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Bible listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bible to be moved to The Bible. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

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 skills considered 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 even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace to be moved to All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (collection). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Article alerts?[edit]

I am trying to create article alerts for this wikiproject, but having trouble. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

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. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't agree with this. Those parameters should only be used for a related series of books. The infobox should be only include characteristics the book, not characteristics of the author (like what they got published next). There are templates, like {{Jane Austen}} that can be transcluded for this purpose you describe. maclean (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviews for Reception section[edit]

Hello, for the Reception section from where do I get critical reviews? The positive reviews are easily available on the book itself. Also if the negative reviews are not from any known persons, is it usable (like from Goodreads or other websites)? Most importantly is it absolutely necessary to go hunt for negative reviews to balance the positive ones? Roshni Kanchan (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Roshni Kanchan The blurbs on the book's cover are not a good source for reviews to bring into the article -- no date for one thing. Those are neatly clipped from a larger review, and that full review is what to find for the Literary Significance or Reviews section. I look for reviews in major newspapers, in Kirkus Reviews, in Publishers Weekly, in Library Journal. Sometimes magazines review books, too. I do not believe that Goodreads reviews are allowed as part of a Wikipedia article, see MOS:NOVELS for some guidance. I think might be useful, but I have not got into that source myself, yet. Some books are reviewed and discussed in other books, depending how long since the book was published. Blog reviews, no matter how interesting, are not considered reliable sources. Sometimes a blog contains a copy of a review published elsewhere behind a paywall. If the full citation is available for first printing, then I use those reviews. My big challenge is finding a review in the British or Irish press for books by British or Irish authors -- all behind paywalls? Find as many reviews as are out there. Some books get wholly positive reviews, that is what there is to find. Other books have intriguing reviews that note the strengths and the shortcomings all in one article. That is my 2 cents worth. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Prairieplant, thanks for the reply (and for adding the heading :) ). One more question please - So then if I don't find any negative reviews, shall I not mention the positive ones also? Is it ok to keep that section blank?

--Roshni Kanchan (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Roshni Kanchan Use the reviews that you find. If you look again another time, at least in my experience, more reviews may appear. Over the time I have looked for reviews, many newspapers in the USA changed who had control of their archives. So In one year of seeking reviews, I would find nothing of use, and then the next year I find several reviews, now popping up on google searches. With google, I learned to type the newspaper name in the search key, for better results. Never does the word Reviews get me more than what Amazon or Barnes and Noble has on their selling page. Well, never say never, but rarely. That is why it might be better to look from a public library with their larger resources of archives, and of current newspapers. I think of the middle of the Patrick O'Brian series, when readers in the US abruptly discovered the series, and reviews were universally positive on every aspect of the novels. Later toward the end of the series, some reviews were more varied, judging one novel against the other as to structure or plot, and the big issue with those books, are they literature? If anyone had negative things to say in that middle period of the novels, those are still hidden from my view, and not in the articles. Reading the whole review is the key, as a good reviewer covers a lot of territory. I would not skip a Reviews section if Reliable Source reviews exist and you can access them. For books, the Reviews are a proof of notability as well as interesting to read. If some editor says a Review section is too positive, then the point of discussion is to ask, have you seen more critical reviews? If so, then include those reviews. Does that answer your question more clearly? --Prairieplant (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Prairieplant Yes, that does answer my question more clearly. Thank you. Meanwhile I also read a couple of How-To's and other articles on Wikipedia (from a contributor's point of view this time :) ) and I understood that I need not have a 100% complete article. As you also explained, I can start with the material that I have and then keep on adding (or someone else will add!). The sections that lack sufficient info have boxes over the heading. So I saw 'this section need citations' or 'this section needs more specific categories' and so on in many articles. So then I understood that I need to keep looking till the section is complete according to me. And yes, you are right Googling for reviews gives me book-sellers only!! I will use your method. Thanks again for clearing that. :) --Roshni Kanchan (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)