Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable books

Count chart

What's the point in keeping a progress chart if both columns "initial" and "remaining" are the same? Very confusing what the point of the chart is. -- Stbalbach 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the chart starts out as. As people create book articles, the remaining count diminishes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel prize

Surely winners of the Nobel prize count for more than winners of Hugo? This coming from an SF fan! Each Nobel prize winner should have articles on their major works. --MacRusgail 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We just do notable or not notable. We don't do comparative notability. We will ideally have an article on anything that is notable. Hope that covers it all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bias

As usual, just anglosaxons prizes appart from Nobel. There are a lot of important prizes from other literatures you should take in account. Take at least the most important prizes of french, german and spanish languages--62.175.86.207 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, glass half empty. It is a volunteer effort. If you would like to volunteer to create lists from such awards, we would be only too grateful.

Unverified blue links sections - proposal to trim

I'd like to see the unverified blue links sections trimmed. Books which have stubs are being listed. I see the purpose of this list as being to create articles, not as being to work on the quality of articles. I presume there is a books project working on infoboxes & quality ... it seems off to seek to drive a quality initiative from a partial list of books. Bottom line, it is not helpful to dilute the purpose of the initiative. So. Once we have verified that a book article, of whatever quality, exists, I think we should remove the blue link. Anyone got a problem with that? Anyone actually read this page? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should recruit more Wikipedians to organise the list

Since there're so many notable books (reviewed or awarded, adapted, frequently studied) not found on the "list of notable books", and there're some blue links on the "Missing or needs redirect" section and some red links on the "Unverified blue links" section, we'e better ask more Wikipedians (members of the book or novel WikiProject are perhaps more willing and capable) to organise the list (I've recently organised the 4th and 8th, but it's too tiring for me......) and refresh the figures on the table (it has not been updated since 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)).--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]