Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

WikiProject Medicine needs your help

Hello, all,

I wonder whether you all could help with the list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical film and book articles from this course to be checked. WPMED's pretty good at the "medical" side of a health-related book, but we have much less collective experience with the "book" side. These articles were produced by students taking a class that seems to be about how health issues get presented in pop culture. I'd love to have your help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have watched the article on living person Laura Hillenbrand, not about a book but about a famous author, for a long time now. I feel that her health situation is aptly described and well referenced. I am do not see why that article is in your list. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN

CAT:NN has a huge backlog, including 1300 books, some of which have been waiting almost 12 years. Here's the link: [1]. Please help us get down the books backlog! Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Stearn

I wrote this in a previous article, largely citing it to The Linnean Society: "William T. Stearn (1911–2001) was one of the preeminent British botanists of the 20th century, a president of the Linnean Society and the original drafter of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. He served as Librarian of the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) from 1934 to 1952, apart from the war years, and worked in the 1950s as Botany Librarian at the British Museum. Brent Elliott, another longtime Librarian of the RHS, described the 1992 edition of Stearn's Dictionary of Plant Names for Gardeners as the "most authoritative account of botanical names and their meanings"." Is that enough to meet the last criterion for notability at WP:NBOOK for Stearn's Dictionary? - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Dank: I don't think this is currently a very strong case for criterion 5 of NBOOK, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable": it doesn't seem to be the case, for example, that "the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" (even if his botanical work is the subject of study). I think criterion 5 more commonly applies to literary works, and figures like Charles Dickens. However, with a bit of digging I suspect you could satisfy criterion 1, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." As long as the praise that you quote from Elliott appeared in an independent source (eg not the preface of the book itself), that's one source right there. And it's common for academic books to be reviewed in academic journals, to provide a second source. Since the book is older some of these reviews may be difficult to find online, but the journals may be digitized. There also might be discussion of the book in biographies of Stearn. Since sources are needed for the article to have verifiable material anyway, finding some kind of coverage is a necessary part of the process anyway. Good luck! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks much. Stearn wrote other books (including Botanical Latin), and I was wondering if there was some criterion that would cover them all at once ... apparently not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Even if they're not all automatically notable enough for their own articles, they'd all be relevant to his article -- you could start writing them up in more depth there, and then if you discovered enough to support notability for an individual work, you could split it into its own article then. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Advice on article contents (From Babel to Dragomans)

I came across this article on a book From Babel to Dragomans, and found it quite odd. It consists of a short lede, followed by a selection of 'quotes from the author' (doesn't say where from), and then a long TOC of the book — and that's it. Starting with the latter, I personally don't see any reason for listing the TOC, but thought I'd better ask for advice before going ahead and deleting it — is there a policy on this, either for or against? As for the quotes, I'm concerned about the lack of references, plus that they presumably are some sort of copyvio, so again I'd like to get rid of them. Alas, this would leave only the lede. (I did think of just PRODding the article for non-notability, but I have actually found several reviews of the book in major newspapers, which I'll be adding as references shortly, so I now think it does satisfy notability; also, the author was quite eminent in the field of Middle East history, which may satisfy points 3 and/or 5 of WP:NBOOK.) Any advice on this would be appreciated, thanks in advance! :) (PS: Can't ask the original editor for comments, as s/he is long since banned.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the TOC, there is no wikiproject guideline one way or the other. It is your editor discretion which should be guided by the general Wikipedia:Editing policy. Unless it is not consistent with one of those WP:DON'T PRESERVE guidelines, I would leave it. In this case, I think something is better than nothing. However, I think the Quotes section should be removed. Three of the four are quotes from the book (the third one did not come up in the search engine). Quotes are fine for illustrating points on author's writing style or for when getting the precise phrasing is important but should be reserved for more developed articles where context is provided. This is just a list of quotes without context (i.e. it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE). maclean (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, @Maclean25: I'll take out the quotes on copyvio basis, and leave the TOC for now. I would have thought that also falls foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but perhaps not; I'll open a discussion on the talk page and see if any consensus emerges either way. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Best way to link to reviews?

Hi, I've been looking at some of the links on Enna Burning and trying to figure out the best way to link to book reviews in a database. Is there a way to permalink to articles in EBSCO without the proxy link? I couldn't figure that out and ended up linking to the book's record in our library catalog, which contains one of the cited reviews, but I'm not sure if that's the best way to link to the review. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, is the review in question this one? If so, linking that site seems obviously ideal. For the general question -- I've done some poking around with EBSCO and it looks like they don't do externally-viewable permanent links the way eg JSTOR would. My next fallback is to try to find a DOI but I don't think book reviews tend to have those. Technically a link isn't necessary since offline sources are acceptable, just author date and source will do, but it is nice to have a link. Linking the library catalogue strikes me as unusual, but since it includes the text of the review it does seem useful... though I suppose the question is whether the library itself collected those reviews, or whether they were provided by the publisher. It's not considered a reliable source to use eg the book's/author's/publisher's website as the source since they have a conflict of interest (just like we can't use someone's personal site or CV as proof of a job or award). If the library is simply recirculating information from the publisher it might be questionable (like how a press release reprinted in a newspaper is still not an RS since it's not original reporting). ...Doing some more poking around I think I found the Booklist review too, so I think my answer is, the best source is to track down the review in the publication that originally published it. And second-best might be to leave the review unlinked (treating it like an offline source) or to link to a relatively neutral third party reproducing the review (like the library catalogue), though that's just my own opinion. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 18:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, use |id={{EBSCOhost|#######}} to link the identifier. For a few examples, see Anarchist Voices or this diff. czar 02:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you, both! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I put the Kirkus Review cite in a more usual format, adding the date the review went online and the original date of the review, all found at the Kirkus Review link. The article needs consistent date formats in the citations. I suggested mdy in the Talk page. A citation needs one more thing besides "just author date and source will do, " and that is a title for the source, either a book, chapter in a book or title of a journal article. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco Book Review

Hi, I've seen the San Francisco Book Review site pop up in some of my research, especially for horror novels. Would you consider it reliable? It does allow for sponsored reviews (which are not indicated in the review itself), but states that they don't write vanity reviews. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Contents section and primary source

The guide recommended a "Contents" section other than a "Synopsis" one. For the synopsis of a recent book article I wrote, it was simple and short, I used descriptions from various independent reviews. But I wondered: to what extent is it acceptable to use the book itself as a source for a "Contents" section that would expand beyond a synopsis (interpreted from my own reading)? I know that it's more likely to be deleted if controversial and sourced to a controversial book, but is it generally acceptable otherwise? The book in question is at Draft:Earth's Deep History. Would an ideal uncontroversial book article still only use secondary independent sources to support material in "Contents"? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding: considering "an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included. Unless the list has encyclopedic value it is better to convey this in the synopsis", I won't add a contents section unless I get recommendation to do so. If anyone eventually replies, please ping me. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 13:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Contents must mean the table of contents for a complex nonfiction book. The synopsis for this nonfiction book was written by editors without any footnotes to other sources, in Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption. That particular article is lacking a section on Reception or Literary Significance, apparently thinking that Awards and Honors suffices; the article on that author's other major book, Seabiscuit: An American Legend has a good Reception section but no Synopsis. The two articles are still works in progress, I guess. I thought this way of writing the synopsis was acceptable (I did not work on this particular article).

To me, it is similar to the Plot summary of a fiction book, which is generally written briefly and without citations to other sources. There is an emphasis on avoiding writing it in what is called "in universe" style, which means do not write it in the author's style, use more ordinary language. To me, having sources for the synopsis seems unneeded, but maybe I have not read enough articles about nonfiction books. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That also looks more like a movie plot summary to me and would likely be deleted if it was about a controversial propaganda book (not really the case for the above draft though)... —PaleoNeonate – 05:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

So I probably mixed up the roles of synopsis and contents, thanks for this, —PaleoNeonate – 05:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would think that we should give the reader what it is an encyclopedia reader would likely wish to know. So, my thought is that an encyclopedia reader would want to know, about a book, "what does it say?" That is: "What is it about?" Even if the book takes a generally unpopular stance, still I would think that the average reader would wish to know that basic information, prior to knowing what reviewers have to say. And so, my thought is that although your article on Earth's Deep History is very nice, it would benefit by an expansion of the synopsis. It is so brief, I feel that I still don't really know what the book is about.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Adding a citation/reference is ok for a simple one or two line summary. However, anything more detailed, like a full "Contents" or "Synopsis" section should not be referenced to anything other than the book itself. Considering the material, any other source would inherently be less authoritative (reliable). I wrote a few FA/GA level articles on non-fiction books but found when I did try to reference these sections they violated bias and undue weight. The versions that just relied on summarizing the book from the book itself (summarize and report) were much better (eg. closer to Wikipedia:Verifiability, maintained the weight of the book's contents, etc.) maclean (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Maclean25, your experience seems definitive, from Featured Article/Good Article on non fiction books. Write an unbiased synopsis and do not rely on published sources other than the book. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's consider a book like Darwin on Trial, any expansion on its claims could be considered undue. It's probably not the case for the above draft though. I'll still be rereading this thread to better understand how book articles are generally written, thanks for the clues, —PaleoNeonate – 05:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

AFC deleted by AAlertBot - why??

I posted to the AFC board for my draft article for Absolute Monarchs by John Julius Norwich, and I see that the AAlertBot removed it. I don't see it in the archive either. Why did that bot do that?? Also, I have tried to use the book cover art to illustrate the draft, but most recently (after I thought I had successfully added the right tag and notices to the image file, some bot removed the image from the draft, saying that you can only use non-free images for articles. Is it because it is a draft and not an article? I feel so confused by all of this.Truth is King^TALK 19:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Article alerts is maintained by a bot, hence why it was overwritten. To add articles to its routine, you can tag your draft similar to what I just did on yours. That page is for alerts, though, and has no bearing on the AfC submission process.

Yes, once the article is accepted into mainspace, then you can add a fair use (non-free) cover art image, but not while it's in draft. Wikipedia encourages free use content and has many restrictions on using copyrighted content. czar 21:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco Book Review

Hi, I've seen the San Francisco Book Review site pop up in some of my research, especially for horror novels. Would you consider it reliable? It does allow for sponsored reviews (which are not indicated in the review itself), but states that they don't write vanity reviews. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU), sorry I missed this. No, I wouldn't consider it reliable, particularly for the reasons you pointed out. Mixing in unmarked paid content is a red flag. Regardless of what they say, it's the definition of a vanity review. Same for calling oneself a "respected publication"—that's for people other than them to determine. No noteworthy reputation for accuracy/fact-checking, reliability, editorial pedigree. czar 01:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Any way to test notability, before authoring an article? Are articles about nonfiction books superfluous to articles about the facts they present?

Hi all,

Is there any way to test notability, prior to authoring an article? I'm concerned that I will go to all the effort of writing an article only to be told that the subject book is not notable. Kirkus Reviews seems to review just about anything and everything - so - does it help to establish notability, to cite to Kirkus Reviews review?

I'm also interested in the relationship between an article about a book, and another article about the facts it presents. For example, there is already an article about Velma Barfield but no article about the Jerry Bledsoe book, Death Sentence, about that case. Would it be duplicative to create an article about the book? I would not think so, just because Bledsoe creates a book that is so rich in detail, and asks interesting questions, such as "what is the responsibility of the company that created and marketed Valium?" that I would think it deserves an article of its own. But I'm interested in what others think.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In my own small experience, Kirkus Reviews does not review everything, so I take their review seriously. I look for reviews in Publishers Weekly, and in individual newspapers. When I search for reviews in newspapers, I usually need to put the name of the newspaper as part of the search key, as the word Reviews does not bring up much, except for Goodreads or may be Amazon the book seller, which are not exactly what I seek for in notability. As you are working to write an article that is pretty complete to start, which is commendable, I recommend searching for the reviews as part of your effort. Libraries can help with access to newspapers to which you have no subscription. The Barnes and Noble link to buy the book shows excerpts from several reviews of the book you mention, Death Sentence, here if you scroll down their page. Sometimes a local library, or the Library Journal, or School Library Journal will publish a review on the book of interest, and those are sometimes signed by the person who wrote the review.

The other source of comment on nonfiction books is journal articles, where once again the public library helps, as that way you can read more than the start of a JSTOR article. Of course, some editor can still argue about notability, even with a well-written section on reviews or comments from other books worked into the article -- I think no one can guarantee that there will be no argument. Some editor might say that the article about Velma Barfield should include the Bledsoe book as a source -- I see that a DOC summary of Bledsoe's book is a source for the article on Velma Barfield, oddly not the book itself. However, you have a stronger stance with that work done, especially with the major topics of the death penalty, serial killers and women committing murder involved in her story, and the story of the courts involved in deciding her fate. The lack of reviews would suggest that Bledsoe wrote a poor book, not really part of the discussion of the death penalty or the particular case; on the other hand, a collection of reviews of the book by Bledsoe, its viewpoint and sources, will make a case for the article on the book. Another way to make my point is that there are nonfiction books that are really poorly written, not worth anyone's time to read them. Make the case that this nonficiton book is well written and presenting the real situation well. Consider the two books by Laura Hillenbrand, both nonfiction (Seabiscuit and Unbroken). Her books elicited many positive reviews and awards for writing, and each was made into a movie, because her viewpoint, her careful research, revealed a compelling story in our recent history, and there is an article about each book in Wikipedia. There is an article about Clutter family murders and about In Cold Blood by Truman Capote. in Wikipedia, a more exact comparison to the serial murderer and the book by Bledsoe.

Truth Is King 24, Ah, I just learned that Publishers Weekly will end free access on September 13, 2020, which can be extended to October by signing up in some fashion. How to reach it afterwards? Anyway, here is their review of Death Sentence by Jerry Bledsoe here, read it today! --Prairieplant (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Prairieplant (talk · contribs) Thank you!! That was all very helpful. If I do prepare an article, though, I think I will start with Absolute Monarchs by John Julius Norwich, as that will be easy to show notability.Truth Is King 24^TALK 12:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you've gotten excellent advice from Prairieplant (and I'll second their observation that Kirkus doesn't review everything, I often check there for books articles being considered for deletion and find nothing). I just wanted to link to WP:NBOOK which provides what I find a very clear standard of notability that you can confidently confirm you've met: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself," for which reviews count (though not press releases). For your second question, I do see value in articles about nonfiction books, when those books have received enough coverage to be notable in themselves -- a book is not identical to the subject it covers. I wrote a lot of both Daughters of the Samurai and Oyama Sutematsu, for example, which I think duplicate very little information. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Oulfis (talk · contribs), thank you. I read both of those articles, and I thought they were just excellent and very interesting. It really makes one admire the strength of the human spirit that Oyama Sutematsu could have achieved so much, even while coping with a different culture, a different language and separation from her family and everything previously familiar to her. It also makes me admire the Americans who interacted with her, who seem to have accepted her with open hearts.Truth is King^TALK 00:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I write about nonfiction so perhaps my process would be useful:

1. In general, if there aren't three substantive articles/reviews about a book, it's better to instead put those sources in the author's article for safekeeping and redirect the book's title.
2. If the book is recent, start with the publisher's site, where they tend to aggregate press about the book. Take each of these quotes and use a search engine for a portion. E.g., for this Dorothy Day biography, I can search for "vivid account of her political and religious development" site:nytimes.com" to find the exact quote from the original article and see whether it's a mention in a roundup or the subject of a dedicated review. If you don't specify the site to search, you'll typically be inundated with book reseller websites repeating the same book jacket quote. Typically this search gets a good start if the book is already established.
3. For contemporary reviews, search Google News to get the major publications wheat without the low-quality publication chaff. Search Google Books for mid-century publications.
4. Avoid trade publications Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist, and Kirkus, whose reviews tend to be fairly shallow and indiscriminate in selection. I've never seen a case where a noteworthy book depends on coverage from one of these four. I.e., even if it's a selection/pick from one, there should be many other sources to confer notability.
5. If the book is academic, search JSTOR (rt:"Death Sentence: The True Story" like so to automatically search reviews. If you are not associated with a library, you can get free access to EBSCOhost and Gale for more reviews through The Wikipedia Library. Your local library likely also offers database access as well, potentially to ProQuest. This captures many humanities sources but not even close to anything, so you'll still find more by searching specific publishers whose journals you'd expect to carry a review. Search Academia.edu and university repositories to find open use PDFs of academic reviews.
6. If the book is old, check Book Review Digest or Book Review Index, which index major the book reviews of major journals and periodicals and will list publications and reviews you cannot find online. You will likely need to go through someone for these. Some regional libraries have access to their online database versions, but they're usually only accessible onsite based on the license and even still, might not cover the years you're after (check the year range):
   • Book Review Digest Retrospective (reviews 1903–1982)

     1903–1924 are in the public domain and accessible through HathiTrust

   • Book Review Digest Plus (reviews 1981–present)
   • Gale Literature: Book Review Index (reviews 1965–present)

   Your library likely won't carry all of these. You might need to track down the volume manually and then begin the search for the reviews themselves.

7. If all else fails, ask for help on this talk page. When having trouble tracking down a citation, give the full citation to WP:RX for help. Plenty more tips for that part, but that's a different guide.

In this case, I'm not finding a lot for Bledsoe's Death Sentence so I wouldn't try creating a dedicated article about it. You can, however, use the sources you find to write about the book proportionately in the author's article and then split out summary style if and when you find some plethora of sources with enough depth to warrant the split. czar 02:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Books by writer category hierarchy

I think of Category:Books by writer as essentially equivalent to Category:Albums by artist. Look at the latter and it is one of several schemes for navigating albums where if you go to Category:Albums by artist, you see a listing of all albums by artist. Another scheme for navigating albums is but artist nationality, which can be investigated from Category:Albums by artist nationality. Consequently, you can get to Category:R.E.M. albums directly from Category:Albums by artist if you go to "R" or by going Category:Albums by artist nationality→Category:Albums by American artists→Category:Rock albums by American artists→Category:Alternative rock albums by American artists (there are other ways to navigate there but they are not germane). Conversely, for some reason, Category:Books by writer is entirely diffused into other navigation schemes, including by nationality. This seems like a backwards way to do things that makes it less easy to navigate. If you want to find all categories of books by author, they should be directly in Category:Books by writer. If you want to find books written by Danes, go to Category:Danish books by writer. Cf. also (e.g.) Category:Films by director: this scheme is "artwork/piece of media by primary creator of that media". It seems obvious to me that all of these by nationality person categories should be placed directly into Category:Books by writer. Is there something that I am missing here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any objection and undoing this is trivial, so I'll make this change. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity

Hi all, I created a new article A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity and filled in much content. I was very surprised the article did not exist before as I had already heard about it from my graduate studies in physics. I have already posted on the physics WikiProject talk page inviting them to edit the page and it got some help, but I also wanted to extend the invitation here. I think it is on the verge of being a very good book article and I wanted also to get some criticism from you all on how to make it better (or invite you to make the changes you deem necessary) and what it would take to bring it up to good and then featured article status. Thanks!Footlessmouse (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The Big Butt Book

I created a new article, about the literary work which traces the cultural history of the buttocks -- The Big Butt Book. Let me know if you want to help out with further research! Thanks very much, Right cite (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Transfer of Power

The Vince Flynn novel Transfer of Power needs serious expansion, including the plot summary, critical reception and such. Someone needs to work on expanding it. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story Featured article review

I have nominated When God Writes Your Love Story for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for The Country Wife

I have nominated The Country Wife for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:E-book#Requested move 16 April 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:E-book#Requested move 16 April 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Student Updating a Wikipedia Page

Hi there, I am a student currently enrolled in a class where we have to improve a stub article. Our edits and the final quality of the wiki page will be used as our final marks. I will be updating/adding/editing 'The Polyester Prince' page over the coming 5 weeks. While this wiki page is an unauthorised biography and not exactly linked to this wikiproject, I do think it is relevant, and therefore, would love any input, advice, and tips over the coming weeks as I begin to slowly update the page. Thanks so much! WaTErMelON690 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @WaTErMelON690: Welcome. It's a book, so it's relevant to this project! A couple of points:
  • When you mention any article on a talk page, please provide a link so that other editors can go straight to the article to see The Polyester Prince.
  • Your tutor should have explained about adding the {{Educational assignment}} template or similar to the talk page of the article - I've done so but haven't added a link to the course talk page, please do so if there is one. Thanks.
  • I've added a missing ":" in the lead, as a small contribution.

PamD 07:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@WaTErMelON690: Welcome! I hope you enjoy editing this article. I am happy to answer specific questions you might have as you go along, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. My main tip is to remember that the article is about the book, not the person. It looks like this book has an interesting publishing history which is worth discussing. It is also helpful to talk about the reception or broader impact of the book: did it get a lot of reviews? Are there later books or events that were influenced by the book? That sort of thing is usually a more valuable addition than adding more to the plot summary. I wish you luck! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Man and His Kingdom by A. E. W. Mason. Does this novel actually exist?

We have an article called Man and His Kingdom (novel), which purports to be a novel by A. E. W. Mason. I've had no success so far in locating any such book. It is not mentioned by Mason's 1952 biographer Roger Lancelyn Green, and neither the British Library nor the Library of Congress holds any book of that name. The sole source relied on by the article is Alan Goble's The Complete Index to Literary Sources in Film which states on page 311 that "Man and His Kingdom, Novel" was the source of the 1922 silent film Man and His Kingdom (film). I suspect that may simply be an error. Can anyone help? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It must be The Man and His Kingdom by E. Phillips Oppenheim. I've found it via this Google Books snippet. –Austronesier (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It was published in 1899, before the silent film era, per the Wikipedia article on Oppenheim. Well done, Austronesier. -- Prairieplant (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sandra

Please write.Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The China Study

There is a discussion at Talk:The China Study about whether it is sufficient to source the synopsis of a book on the book itself when the book is making medical claims. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Additions

Hi, Im a student at the University of Sydney and part of my course was to improve a stub-level article. My assigned topic was The Polyester Prince biography on Dhirubhai Ambani by Hamish McDonald. I just finished adding a lot of detail to the article and was wondering if anyone could take a look at it to provide me with some feedback. It would be much appreciated! --WaTErMelON690 (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked at formats and references. Simple thing of consistent date formats and using a shorter url. -- Prairieplant (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessment request for The Polyester Prince

The Polyester Prince (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• I am a student who has been working on improving this article for the last couple months however it has yet to be improved from the "stub" class. It's an unauthorised biography on a famous Indian business tycoon called Dhirubhai Ambani written by Hamish McDonald. It was published in Australia in 1998 but received injunctions on the grounds of anticipatory defamation of Ambani and his company Reliance Industries that stopped its publication in India. I have added a lot of sections and details and I believe I have supported my writing with a good deal of references as per wikipedias guidelines for a good article. WaTErMelON690 (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed start article in this Wikiproject

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History 167,434 5,581 Start--Coin945 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly the article rating could be changed from Start Class, given the long list of inline citations, and the various sections of the article text. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur and re-assessed [2] it accordingly. It better reflects the C-class criteria of Template:Grading scheme than the start class. maclean (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Dracula

Hi, everyone! Two days ago, I pushed a full rewrite of Dracula to mainspace. It was, in my view, pretty bad previously. I'm here to do something similar for what I did when I updated The Turn of the Screw and solicit feedback. I'll be taking the article to GA, and then probably FAC not too long after that. If you think something sounds wrong, you can let me know (or fix it yourself, if you like!); if anything is confusing, just give me a ping here, on the Talk, or on my user talk. The article isn't finished yet, though. If you have a look at Talk:Dracula, you can see the list of changes I mean to make in the near-future. If there's any questions you have, or comments, or anything at all, I'd be really open to hearing it. Open to all suggestions and I promise I'm very friendly. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:BOOK" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:BOOK. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 2#Wikipedia:BOOK until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC re: Ronan Farrow reporting at NBC News

There is an RfC at Talk:NBC News#Request for Comment NBC News Farrow Reporting that members of this project may be interested in since it relates to a book by Farrow. Please note I am a paid consultant to NBC News. BC1278 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Not sure where to post this but I was hoping to get some eyes on the recently performed—and, in my view, controversial—move and merger of Cambridge University Press to/with Cambridge University Press & Assessment. CUP is a leading academic press and has been around for ages. "Cambridge University Press & Assessment" is a recent corporate reorganisation to combine CUP with a much less well-known assessment division. There are 20,492 incoming links to Cambridge University Press. Surely it would be appropriate to have a standalone article for CUP? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Preceded by" in infobox

Hello, WP Books members. I've started a discussion about the use of the "preceded by" field in the book infobox, at Talk:Wide Sargasso Sea#Preceded by in infobox. Interested editors are encouraged to comment there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Etan Ilfeld/Watkins Books bought John Hunt Publishing

How to handle this? Merge them? Or keep separate? Hyperbolick (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

List of fictional diaries proposal

I've just put forward a proposal on the list of fictional diaries page and would appreciate some feedback on this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

The broader discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 20#Works by people not currently known to be notable may be of interest to this WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFC

Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Zoeperkoe (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Arsene Lupin story "813" at draftspace

Yo. I need a helping hand with the Maurice LeBlanc novel 813 that got sent to draft-space a while back (see Draft:813 (novel)). The tips suggested me to "asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject" and here I am. I have bit limited knowledge on Arsene Lupin, but I do know enough that 813 is brought up a lot in discussions by the series fans. It seems academic sources on this book are limited and/or escape my attention and I need somebody who knows something to drag this piece from Draftspace. Or have I misunderstood 813's relevance? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello TrickShotFinn. The sourcing may be harder to find here because it is quite old and often in French. For wikipedia notability, a book being beloved of its fans is not very relevant to notability unless reliable sources have commented on the fact that people like it more than usual, or unless those fans have gone on to publish their own commentary in reliable sources. However, I suspect that this book did get enough RS reviews to pass WP:NBOOK. Citing a few reviews should get the article through AfC. The trouble may just be accessing those reviews and using them to write a high-quality article. I have found the following as starting places:

• Cowper, Cecil, 1856. "813." The Academy, 1905-1910, 1910-10-01 (2004), p.326-326; London: Academy Publishing Co., etc Snippet: "...81S. By MAURICE LEBLANC. Translated by ALEXANDER. TEIXErRA DE MATTOS. (Mills and Boon. 6s.) IN his latest book, " 813," M. Maurice Leblanc has more than..." May be digitized here
• This is actually a review of the film based on the book: "813." Kinematograph Weekly (Archive: 1919-1959), 1920-10-28, Vol.44 (705), p.66; London: Media Business Insight. Snippet: "... that does not defy dramatic values. Its conclusion is the only possible one, and emphasises the strength and vigour that are obvious throughout. Maurice Leblanc..." In ProQuest here.
• This article talks about 813 for at least a page.

I would also suggest looking for sources like A Companion to Crime Fiction, ed. Rzepka, Charles J., and Lee Horsley, Wiley‐Blackwell, 2010, which name-drops 813 on page 297. (All it says is "In Arsene Lupin, Gentleman Thief (1908) he enjoys making fools of the police while having adventures, though in later novels like 813 (1910) and The Hollow Needle (1910) he chooses to work with the police instead.") That source isn't WP:SIGCOV but others might have more. Check Priestman, Martin, and Sita A. Schütt. “French Crime Fiction.” The Cambridge Companion to Crime Fiction, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 59–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521803993.005.

You might also find retrospective pieces like this one for a SF series, which I believe met the bar of a reliable source because it was published by Tor rather than self-published.

Of these I don't think the film review contributes to notability, and I'm not sure about the article (would have to read it to see whether it's really "significant" coverage) but the review by Cowper gets you halfway to NBOOK. If you need help accessing these articles or others that you find, let me know and I can use my library subscription to get them. But right now I don't have time to do a lot of reading in French so I can't help with the writing. Good luck! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about rapid-onset gender dysphoria

Comments would be welcome at Talk:Irreversible Damage#RfC: Should rapid-onset gender dysphoria be described as "fringe"?. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters Featured article review

I have nominated Thoughts on the Education of Daughters for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Power Boys § Are the Power Boys series notable?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Power Boys § Are the Power Boys series notable?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alan Moore's Magic Words

The article Alan Moore's Magic Words has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

After 15.05 years, this stub is still only cited to a fansite and a LiveJournal post.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Should an article have the cover of the newest edition?

There is now a second edition to the book Embedded Racism while the article uses the first edition cover. Should the image of the first edition be swapped for the second, would the first be the best, or is there little difference?

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is any specific reason for using the second edition, the first edition is normally preferred, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. (Full disclosure: I'm the author of the book in question.) I would like to make the case that other publications, such as album covers [covers] and other books [[3]], will include different variations of covers for reasons like sales in different languages and countries -- and yes, other editions [[4]]. Is there any reason we can't include both covers in the entry like they do on other Wikipedia entries? Debito Arudou Ph.D. (Talk) 00:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that book covers are copyrighted and therefore must follow Wikipedia:Non-free content. Someone will come along and remove those extra images; Wikipedia tries not to push its luck with fair use. However, if the publisher is willing to allow Wikipedia to use the book covers, then (yay!) use Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials (we will add them all, then). maclean (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd most always go with the first, if that edition was what made the book notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

About my edit here [5], am I right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The History of the Country of Albania#Requested move 11 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The History of the Country of Albania#Requested move 11 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 15:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

A Rage in Harlem

I'm just a newbie, and I only edit in cinema (and a little in punk rock), but shouldn't Chester Himes' A Rage in Harlem have its own article? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pete Best Beatles, and welcome! I took a quick look, and yes that novel would certainly be a great candidate for an article! It's received a large number of reviews, including in prestigious venues like the New York Times, not to mention the movie adaptation; an unambiguous pass of WP:NBOOK. But it seems nobody has taken the time to make an article yet. You could probably put together a very useful stub at A Rage in Harlem (novel) fairly quickly with these sources, if you can get past the paywalls: [6] [7] [8]. The book is also an acceptable source for its own plot summary, and if you have a modern edition with a preface by an editor, that is also usable as an RS. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_Atomic_Bomb Kindle Version page 848, design and fabrication of BePo initiator, still classified.

There are scant detail available as to the technical work around the BePO initiator and the designs remain, to this date, classified. While it's 'hear-say' I'd like to contribute a comment about this that's at least suggestive of the identity of one possible key player. In 1979 I worked at the USAF Weapons Laboratory, and had the privilege of working briefly with an 'elderly' gentleman named Walter F. Dudziak, who was, I was informed, "here from Los Alamos" (although in point of fact it appears he was visiting from somewhere in California in conjunction with some work on a project administered at Los Alamos). In the course of conversations I learned that Walter had direct experience working with nuclear weapons and their testing, which I found fascinating and when possible I asked questions of various sorts, thinking his knowledge and insight unique (in my experience). The then Director of the Computational Division of the AFWL mentioned, in a conversation about Walter "he worked in the Manhattan Project. He was the guy who figured out how to machine the beryllium sphere." To this day I've always had the impression that Walter F. Dudziak, who worked in various capacities and sites in conjunction with the U.S. early nuclear weapons program, may have had a significant, if not critical, role in the design and fabrication of this key, and highly secretive, component. Walter passed away shortly after the millenium (2007, if I recall correctly) so perhaps we'll never know. But for whatever it's worth I thought highly enough of this charming older character, his candor and wit, to pass along this comment, attributing to him an important, if concealed, contribution to that effort.

Patrick N. Smith Phoenix, AZ May, 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.4.122.226 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Grade for God's Philosophers

Hi all,

I have been improving this stub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:God%27s_Philosophers and I believe it is ready for grading.

Thanks for welcoming me to the group!

Barbarianhamish (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Help grading non-fiction book article

Hi guys! I've been working on The Return of Depression Economics and would really appreciate if someone could help me grade it. It's definitely more than a stub now :) and feedback is most welcome too --Lattecoffee (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Original Stories from Real Life

I have nominated Original Stories from Real Life for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Down These Mean Streets (not Chandler)

Anybody want to have a look at the Themes section of Down These Mean Streets? While there are an impressive number of cites, it reads more like OR/litcrit. I keep asking myself, who is actually speaking, the source or the editor? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Reference needs to be checked

Hi! Could someone check the very first reference in the Gothic double article? The article has been nominated for DYK and this is the last thing that prevents it from going forward, while the author has gone AWOL. Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis I do not have the book, so I cannot help with a page number to add to the cite, but WorldCat shows it is a real book, held at many libraries, with contents quite likely to be used as a good source, especially in modern books, and gives the contents as

The shape of the gothic --

Architecture & form --

The lie of the land --

The gothic compass --

Monsters.

Ah, this author and book are cited again, as Ref #6 and Ref #74, the latter with a page number. Reg #6 is used several times in the article. Thus, I am not clear what needs to be checked for the Did You Know?/DYK decision.

Barnes and Noble summarizes the book thus

A richly illustrated history of the Gothic across a wide range of media, including architecture, literature, and film

The word Gothic conjures associations with the dark and melancholy, the weird and feared, and haunted places and people. In Gothic, Roger Luckhurst offers readers an unprecedented look at the ways this uncanny style has manifested itself through architecture, literature, film, art, video games, and more. From the works of Victor Hugo and E. T. A. Hoffmann to Southern Gothic, ancient folklore, and classic horror movies, Luckhurst explores how an aesthetic that began in the margins has been reinvented through the centuries to become part of mainstream global culture.

Organizing his wide-ranging history by theme, Luckhurst begins with Gothic architecture and form, including such elements as the arch, the house, and ruins. He considers how the Gothic is depicted in rural and urban settings, as well as in the wilderness and borderlands. And he delves into Gothic traditions and settings around the world, from the sublime Alps and Australian outback to the Arctic wasteland, from the dark folkloric realm of the forest to the postindustrial landscapes of abandoned hospitals and asylums, and then beyond the bounds of the planet to unknowable cosmic horror. Luckhurst investigates the monsters that mirror ourselves and society, and demonstrates that as the Gothic has traveled across the globe and through time, it has morphed according to the shape of our changing fears and anxieties.

Filled with a wealth of color illustrations, Gothic will enthrall anyone yearning to lift the veil on our fascination with the eerie, morbid, and supernatural.

It did not show up as a google book with searchable text. I hope someone who owns the book can double check the specifics noted in the lead. - - Prairieplant (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis, this talk page is a project/noticeboard for WP's articles about books. For citation help, you can request a copy of the chapter from WP:RX. czar 22:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Remembering Reconstruction: Struggles over the Meaning of America's Most Turbulent Era

I would appreciate if an editor experienced with book articles could look at Remembering Reconstruction: Struggles over the Meaning of America's Most Turbulent Era. Does the synopsis needs trimming? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, yes. Anything north of 700 words is generally excessive, especially for nonfiction. Additionally those book jacket blurb-like reviews are a copyright issue—they need to be paraphrased and not quoted wholesale. czar 20:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: What about all the section headings? I realize it's an edited book, but can much of it be combined? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd wipe them out. This should be 1–3 sentences for each of the ten essays, if each even needs explication. For comparison, see the synopsis sections of The May Pamphlet or Why Marx Was Right for two recent examples of summarizing multiple chapters. czar 22:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Czar: Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bully Pulpit (book)

I did some cleanup to The Bully Pulpit, but only read one of this author's books, and am not a member of WP Books. IMO could someone familiar with this book please add details to the content section? Also, I don't have a subscription for the NY Times and WSJ, though they have useful reviews, so if possible could someone have access add info to here? Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang, I've added archive links for those sources. For access to sources in the future, try WP:RX. czar 15:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The Order of Time Cleanup

I've added a Content section to The Order of Time, but it's poor and doesn't explain sections of the book well, as I don't have much background in physics. I've also posted this thread in WP:Physics, if an expert could help, it would be great. VickKiang (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of One Man and His Bog

The article One Man and His Bog has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Two citations to the book itself do not an article make: fails WP:V & WP:N.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Linking to RfC about which versions to add to Category:Books by publisher

FYI - see Category talk:Books by publisher#RfC: Should this category ever include reprints? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Growing Up Absurd FAC

Growing Up Absurd, our article on the 1960 book by Paul Goodman, is up for featured article status consideration. Since this WikiProject doesn't get these kind of nominations too often, I thought I'd share the link in case anyone from the project is interested:  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Growing Up Absurd/archive1

czar 17:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new CSD

This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We haven't gotten much feedback on this, so I'd appreciate it if more editors would weigh in. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bronze Buddha: A Mystery

I haven't created a lot of book articles so unsure about the best practice for punctuation and for uppercase/lowercase in the book title. Is The Bronze Buddha: A Mystery the best choice, vs. The Bronze Buddha, A Mystery or The bronze Buddha, a mystery, or something else? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

Started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonverse a couple weeks ago, has gotten some responses but not enough to draw a consensus from. It's a bit of a weird case but one I think needs some serious attention. QuietHere (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Ukraine at the reliable sources noticeboard

The Encyclopedia of Ukraine is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 04:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Post-closure, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Non-fiction has been nominated for discussion

Category:Non-fiction has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Οἶδα (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Gospel of John

Is John a "book," within the definition of this project? I'm not making a judgment; I'm just curious. It was recently added by including {{WikiProject Books}} on Talk:Gospel of John by an experienced editor. The three synoptic gospels have not been added. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonfiction or Non-fiction?

The article, currently at Nonfiction, has been moved back and forwards several times, most recently in an undiscussed move in 2019.

The category, currently Category:Non-fiction, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_16#Category:Non-fiction with a suggestion it be moved to Category:Nonfiction.

This seems relevant to this project. PamD 20:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The CfD discussion was closed as "no consensus". There is now a discussion at Talk:Nonfiction#Requested_move_1_February_2023. PamD 08:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Textbook, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Jonathan Karp

Hello! On behalf of American book editor, publisher, and writer Jonathan Karp, I've submitted a few edit requests to update his biography. One of the requests is about crediting him for his contributions to a selection of specific books, based on multiple reliable sources.

Are any project members able to take a look at the ongoing discussions? Thanks in advance for any feedback or article updates! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Author's viewpoint about their own book

In a recent discussion here, about an academic book, another editor made a claim that "The author's viewpoint about their own book is not a viewpoint that is WP:DUE in the "reviews" section of a Wikipedia article about the book." (This is in the context of an author replying to a critical review mentioned in our article about said book). I disagree, but we could use a WP:3O and more. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, the author's rebuttal is intended to be used as the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, it was the last word in a series of polemics published in academic journal; the journal did not publish anything else about it (after publishing several letters from different scholars - not the author, until that final one, IIRC - over the period of several years, all of which are cited and/or quoted by in the mentioned book article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

As I understand the notion of a "review" of a book, that excludes the author's own view of it. Red Slapper (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. Othwerise, the section loses its meaning. We should afford the author a right-to-reply but not literally the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I've weighed in on the Talk page. It looks like there is a much bigger balance/WP:DUE problem than this one - namely, almost nothing related to what scholars currently think about the book, which is 40 years old. I have to agree, I'm shocked that an author's response to reviews might be used as the "last word". I don't think we should typically afford an author a "right-to-reply" either, myself, unless it's a reply that generates its own notable coverage. (eg, it looks like there was an extensive back-and-forth between the author and reviewers, and it would be strange not to mention that had occurred.) -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The book became the subject of a lengthy discussion in Slavic Review, I think it would be fairer for the reader of the article to describe the entire discussion, even if it was the author of the book who had the "last word" in it. It would be strange to cite a discussion of the book, leaving out the author's responses. Why hide it? If the problem is the name of the section then maybe it should be changed?Marcelus (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

EveryBookItsReader Campaign

Hi! I'm working with a small group of mostly-librarians to launch a new campaign focused on books called #EveryBookItsReader. Please let me know if you have questions. Bridges2Information (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Question about the notability of several books

Hello. I was thinking of doing articles for a few of the books written by G. K. Chesterton, an author I like. Though, I have absolutely no experience at all in writing articles for books and so I'd appreciate any tips that could be given. Nor do I have experience in the notability discussions of books, so I'd like to know what the book project members think on whether these are notable (attached are sources):

• Fancies Versus Fads - The New Statesman, The Nation, Book Review Digest, The New Republic, The Daily Telegraph, The Courier-Journal (US), The Observer, St. Louis Globe-Democrat (US)
• Greybeards at Play (first book) - Literature, Pittsburgh Daily Post (US), The Academy, Black & White
• Alarms and Discursions - Yale Literary Magazine, The Bookman, The Dial, The Conservator
• The Uses of Diversity - Dayton Daily News (US), The New York Times (US), New-York Tribune, Yale Literary Magazine

BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Generally we're looking for whether there are enough reviews from reputable sources to cover the contents of the book without resorting to original research. So the first one is definitely good, based on the Book Review Digest's index alone showing sizeable reviews. That's the method I'd suggest for tracking down additional reviews for the others. BRD has a listing for Alarms and Discursions (1911) and Uses of Diversity (1921)—the latter looks fine and the former looks scarce. There's no entry on Greybeards. I don't see how it'd be possible to do justice to Greybeards based on your listed sourcing alone. Also note that The Academy and The Bookman links here appear to be advertisements, not reviews, and that the Yale Lit Mag is an undergrad publication and thus wouldn't be reputable for purposes of an encyclopedia. Let me know if you need the BRD for any other Chesterton books. I have the author/title index. Happy editing! czar 06:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11@Czar Here is a scholarly article on Greybeards, and the introduction to it in this 2004 edition should also help. PamD 07:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Czar: I've written Draft:Fancies Versus Fads – I've never done anything like it, so I'd appreciate if you could let me know what you think. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  A nice start! Usually we don't list all chapters but it might be useful in this case if there are 30 essays and a capsule summary of each. For the Reception, I recommend WP:CRS, which gives some advice on synthesizing multiple reviews into a coherent narrative (without becoming original research). Generally would recommend reducing direct quotations to a bare minimum in both the Reception and previous sections. Here are some recent book GAs for comparison. czar 20:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  The wikiproject's main page says Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations. I agree with you that direct quotations should be at a bare minimum, but that guidance ought to be changed, if that's the general GA/FA consensus. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Now I'm confused. So did I write the "reception" section correct or no? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've removed it. It's old advice and not common practice. Honestly that whole section should probably be heavily edited or scrapped. Any advice like that belongs in the manual of style (with higher traffic) and not on a WikiProject homepage. czar 19:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I re-wrote the reception section a bit; any better? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Left a note on the draft's talk page, as that's the best place to comment on the specifics for posterity czar 04:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Glad to hear this is old advice and not common practice. I did find it very strange when it was repeatedly used here, and I always found it difficult to reconcile with many editors' use of "promo". -- asilvering (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  The point is that Reception sections are prone to WP:SYNTH when dealing with multiple reviews and also prone to WP editors re-interpreting the opinions of others. If it's an opinion, then use the words the author chose. If the reviewer wrote this book is smart and funny then use (and attribute) those words; it is inappropriate to interpret that as reviewer said the book was good because they didn't say "good", they said smart and funny. On the Draft:Fancies Versus Fads specifically, ...is considered one of the best collections of... - passive voice, state (in text) who made this conclusion and in what context. Otherwise, it is good. When dealing with books such as this, with only a few reviews, it is better to go more in depth like you have. Those with many many reviews (like commercial, popular culture books) it is better to limit the depth in favour of breadth. - maclean (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion about using citation style & ISBNs in WP articles

Project members are invited to review and comment at Srich32977 and FAITACCOMPLI. – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the link should be WP:ANI#Srich32977 and FAITACCOMPLI. PamD 09:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for The Log from the Sea of Cortez

User:Buidhe has nominated The Log from the Sea of Cortez for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Bible, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Historical Dictionary of Switzerland

Hi, I'm updating this article with the fr translation and with new content. I noticed the originating editors used an "Infobox website" for the article which seems odd since subject is an encyclopedia. Would it be considered normal to use something "book series" and tack on a website infobox at the end so I can retain the logo. On the fr wikipedia, the book view of the encyclopedia image is inside the infobox, but they have a specific encyclopedia infobox, which we don't seem to have. It looks kind of odd at the moment and any help is appreciated. scope_creep^Talk 08:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Carol Sklenicka

Would some members of this WikiProject take a look at Carol Sklenicka? The article seems to start out as a BLP about Sklenicka but the focus then shifts to being mainly about two of her books. Perhaps there's enough about each of these books per WP:NBOOK for separate articles to be created about each of these books? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The LDS church has announced a new hymnal.

With the current hymnal being released in 1985 and the one before *that* in 1948, I'm wondering what would be needed for an article on the "next" hymnal. It was announced in 2018, but has been delayed by covid and for this hymnal, they are looking to have songs which exists in all of the most common X languages of the Church. There is coverage from both the Salt Lake Tribune (which is definitely *not* church affiliated) and Religionnews.com in addition to numerous sources from the LDS Church. I think this is enough for an article, but I'm not sure. (I've also asked over on WP:LDS.)Naraht (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Complete Library of the Four Treasuries#Requested move 16 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Complete Library of the Four Treasuries#Requested move 16 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Folly Mox (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing#Requested move 25 October 2023

An editor has requested that The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing be moved to Al-Jabr, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.— Remsense聊 20:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Waging Peace in Vietnam

Could some members of BOOKS take a look at Waging Peace in Vietnam? The book itself seems like it probably meets WP:NBOOK, but the Waging Peace in Vietnam#Synopsis section seems overly detailed and possibly some WP:NOR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK issues. The beginning of Waging Peace in Vietnam#Confronting the legacies of war has the feelings of a possible WP:C-P violation given the "In this chapter, we hear from the Vietnamese, ...". The pronoun "we" is also used on several other occasions throughout the "Synopsis" section in similar ways which has a non-encyclopedic feel to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Danny Deever

Danny Deever has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 09:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Power: A New Social Analysis

Power: A New Social Analysis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed move of Ab urbe condita (Livy) to History of Rome (Livy)

I've posted a new page move discussion at Talk:Ab urbe condita (Livy) following new input from another editor. I tried to initiate a similar discussion a few years ago, but it didn't go anywhere. It's been a while since the last full discussion. Maybe we can achieve a new consensus. P Aculeius (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:T. Rex and the Crater of Doom#Requested move 10 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:T. Rex and the Crater of Doom#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to deprecate the country parameter of {{Infobox book}}

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book#Proposal to deprecate "country" in favor of "location" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Οἶδα (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs#Requested move 1 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs#Requested move 1 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer review for Free and Candid Disquisitions

Hello, I am reaching out to see if anyone is interested in offering their opinions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Free and Candid Disquisitions/archive1. It's a book primarily about another book that had pretty significant consequences for a multitude of later books. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Indicia (publishing) , Impressum , and Masthead (American publishing)

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Indicia (publishing) , Impressum , and Masthead (American publishing) —have been proposed for merging with Nameplate (publishing). If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Created a proposal to replace "pages" with "word count" on novel pages.

Notifying this project that I proposed to mass-change "pages" to "word count" on novel pages on here.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Proposal_to_ditch_the_"pages"_count_for_novel_pages_and_replace_it_with_a_"words"_count

I would like feedback on that page for users from this project. Thank you. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for input

I've been trying to discuss changes to Shōgun (novel), but I receive very little replies. Input would be appreciated. See Talk:Shōgun (novel)#Edit warring/content disputes and Talk:Shōgun (novel)#Premise. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to New York City next month, and want advice on good book libraries?

I mean physical book, a proxy provider can remove stuff online but he can't remove information in books. That's why I want to read a physical book. It's not only that I have been interested in reading. So yeah, what is the best library in New York City? I would appreciate some answers. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Color of Crime (1998 book)#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Color of Crime (1998 book)#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

FAR for The Slave Community

I have nominated The Slave Community for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Best source for date of first publication

For the article Icebreaker (non-fiction book), I'm interested in this book: Suvorov, Viktor. Le brise-glace [The icebreaker] (in French). Translated by Berelowitch, Madeleine; Berelowitch, Vladimir. Olivier Orban. ISBN 978-2-85565-478-2. OCLC 461996651.

A 1990 translation/republication says it was first published in 1988. All other sources, such as Amazon, Worldcat, Google Books, and a 1990 review article say 1989. What's most reliable? I wouldn't care for the purposes of citation, but I wonder what year should be specified in the article text itself. Daask (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Daask, I'd use 1989, though there is a case for listing both (or creating a footnote that explains the discrepancy). WorldCat alone is the source most often referenced on Wikipedia for dates like this, though WorldCat can potentially miss earlier publications. A good next step would be to request a copy of the title and/or copyright pages (if they exist) to corroborate the date. I try to use reviews where possible. This one uses 1989. czar 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Hello Wikiproject Books! I work at the BYU Library as their Wikipedian-in-residence. Due to recent concerns about our editing, we've been trying to put our new pages through AfC. My student, Noah, recently created a stubby page for a poetry collection: Draft:The World Doesn't End. Would anyone be willing to give us some feedback on it or review the page? I thought that listing the table of contents was unusual, but Ariel (poetry collection) also does this.

Wikiproject literature and Wikiproject Poetry both seem kinda dead... we have also created two pages related to American poetry (but not as directly related to book pages): Draft:Poetry of Czesław Miłosz (also by Noah) and Draft:Gail Mazur (by me). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The CIA and September 11

The CIA and September 11 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation by series rather than author?

Would anyone like to comment as to whether the author or the series redirect should be placed in the category trees at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 24#Empire of Death (Doctor Who novel)? --woodensuperman 11:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about book covers uploads

I have a fairly extensive physical library (at least in my narrow discipline) and could upload several scans of various book covers. Can this be done in Wikimedia Commons with a fair use attribution? I'm struggling to figure out how to best do this without causing any copyright issues. I've seen files uploaded directly onto Wikipedia, but have mostly used commons for creating images. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to add these resources. If the book covers are still copyrighted, they can't go on Wikimedia Commons (which doesn't allow fair-use images, only truly copyright-free ones) but they can very usefully be uploaded to Wikipedia directly. I always use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard to upload book covers, which will eventually prompt you for a non-free use rationale. You'll be able to pick Template:Non-free book cover. You'd then need to add the image to the book article directly, so the fair use conditions would actually apply, so it's a little more complex than putting a whole bunch of images in Commons at once would be, but it would be extra helpful to readers! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! That is unfortunate, I had hoped to just upload on Wikimedia Commons, but oh well. I'll check my excel sheet of books against pages to see what I can add using that approach. Have a great day! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

American book jackets published before 1978 in the US are considered separate works that require their own copyright notice/license (see commons:Template:US book dust jacket 1909–1977), so if you have hardcovers that were never published with a jacket copyright notice, they could be public domain uploads for Commons. czar 12:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, does this only apply to hardcovers with dust jackets? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Before the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect (i.e., roughly 1909 to 1977), works were required to have a copyright notice upon publication or else entered the public domain. In the template I linked, there is a link to a Jaws artwork case in which the cover art on a paperback edition did not have its own copyright notice (for the artwork, separate from the work) and the US Copyright Office concluded that the artwork was ineligible for copyright based on its original publication without a notice. So there is a possibility that paperback cover art in the US could too be in the public domain if published without a notice during that period. czar 01:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned, if you upload to Wikipedia using Template:Non-free book cover you'll be asked for a non-free use rationale. That's generally similar for all book covers, and you can simply copy most of the wording from an existing file such as File:Three Bear Witness, 1st edition cover (Sanford).png. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So I just uploaded a test image for the series Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography, using the first book in the series as an image for the infobox. Does this look correct to you? Asking before I go around and upload others. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

So far as I can see that looks great. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Grass Roots Books

Requesting assistance finding reliable sources and determining notability for Grass Roots Books, a radical UK bookshop. Discussion here: Talk:Grass Roots Books#Source verification czar 13:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Merger of WP:WikiProject Reference works into this project

Discuss here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for My Opposition

My Opposition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Parallel title in two languages

I'm looking for guidance on how to punctuate a parallel title in two languages, e.g. a title in English and in a second language that is relevant to the book's topic. The case in point is The New Zealand Wars / Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa (book), which currently has a slash in the article title and infobox, and a pipe symbol in the start of the article text. Note that it is a parallel title, not a subtitle. Nurg (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What an interesting problem. I don’t think there’s a standard answer here, so I’d fall back on copying the sources. Unfortunately, checking five sources I got five versions: a pipe, a slash, nothing at all, a colon, and putting the second title in caps! It looks like the publisher uses a pipe, so that might be the best supported? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of New Zealand-related things that have this kind of bilingual title, so maybe ask at WP:NZ if they have a preferred standard? -- asilvering (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether there are any Welsh models, perhaps official Welsh government publications etc? Or Canadian? PamD 20:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The Canadian context favours the slash, which must be why my (unstated) gut instinct was a slash even though the publisher was using a pipe. Looking into it, a slash the officially usage in the Canadian government style guide. If the New Zealand context differs it would make sense to follow that instead, but I now provisionally prefer a slash. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, Canada also has the far superior but extremely confusing habit of simply stacking both languages on top of each other, eg "corn tortillas de maïs". -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everyone. So, nothing definitive, but I now think that the slash (which, happily, the article creator put in the article title) seems best. This does fit with the New Zealand use of a slash in official dual-language place names (not that I assumed book titles would necessarily be consistent with place names). Nurg (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)