Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

To Kill a Mockingbird on the main page July 11

To Kill a Mockingbird will appear on the main page on July 11, and I will be traveling that day and won't be able to participate in most of its defense. I expect many edits, primarily to the plot summary, since that's what I guess most people decide needs sprucing up. However, a lot of deliberation went into the plot as it is. Actually, the entire article was a lot of work. I need help watching the it, making sure nothing too crazy is inserted. Your assistance is appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let the games begin! I hope it doesn't receive too much mayhem. María (habla conmigo) 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Status of the Novels Collaboration

Activity at the Novels Collaboration has slowed in the last few months to a virtual standstill. The most recent collaboration was Cities in Flight, which was nominated in September 2006, and has to date received three edits, all in one day by one editor. No new candidates have been proposed since March this year, and no-one seems to have complained that the new collaboration of the month is more than a week overdue. How does the project as a whole wish to proceed with the Collaborations department? Comments from all editors are welcomed. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaborations are struggling in all parts of wikipedia with a few exceptions. We just need more willing hands and titles that catch people imagination to "collaborate on. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was around in 2006 when the Wikipedia:Canada collaboration was abandoned after an attempt to re-energize it. Collaborations of the x are intended to highlight importance=high articles and attract interested contributors to the project. They proliferated across WP as Wikiprojects did and were tailored to meet the needs of each project. Most often I've seen them suffer due to inflexible voting system (majority rules, counting votes cast by editors who went inactive or cast 6 months prior), impractical objectives, and waning interests (inherit in volunteers). If someone wants to try to re-energize it I would suggest that a coordinator decide what its goal should be (highlight/improve importance=high articles, attract new contributors, clean up articles tagged with a maintenance issue, assist an existing editor in his/her GA-drive, etc), set specific objectives for each collaboration, be extremely flexible, and be able to make contacts for specific issues as needed (MOS check, copyediting, source search). maclean 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling

FYI - an anon editor commented on the great length (50K) of the plot summary (which resulted from a successful COTM). Another user today saw fit to delete the entire plot summary from the article. If project participants can assist or comment, it would be most helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A sticky situation. Of course, the ideal solution would be to create a sub-article on the plot. But then the deletionists would go bonkers about WP:NOT#PLOT summary and delete the thing. I don't know what to say, EP. The current strength of deletionists prevents us from doing what's encyclopedic. I find it discouraging: I suspect that most of them won't make the distinction between Henry Fielding and Pokemon. --JayHenry (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wandering by, there is a solution: there are abundant literary criticism references to the plot itself as distinct from other aspects, as being particularly notable for its technical virtuosity (Crane, Booth, etc.). I'd rather not do this all myself--its just a hobby, but if help is needed, , just ask. This is one very clean case where it would not be a subarticle, but where notability can be shown in its own right. DGG (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This will give you a chuckle

I normally don't poke fun at people's comments, but hell this one is so out to lunch and it was posted by an anonymous IP, so I don't care. Check out Talk:The Girl from U.N.C.L.E. for an absolutely clueless comment regarding a statement in the related article that there were 5 "original novels" based upon said TV series. Someone challenged the statement and asked why we didn't count three episodes of the TV series as novels. Or something like that. I'm scratching my head on that... 23skidoo (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Durr , high quality comment from someone, well caught. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo Groups

If an author talks about his books on a yahoo group, can I use those posts as cites? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would depend. Do you have an example? María (habla conmigo) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


[2][3][4][5] Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for a verbal example, seeing as how I don't have a Yahoo account and therefore cannot access those links. :) However, I would say no according to WP:V. María (habla conmigo) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
My bad, here is some text:

about 800,000. 400,000 or so in the PPA, 60K each in the Bearkiller and Clan territory, about 80K in Corvallis, and about 20K in Mt. Angel. The rest mostly east in the CORA, but bits and pieces all the way south of Ashland.

The Yakima League has another 200,000; there's been considerable out-migration from the Yakima Valley, because it was relatively densely populated.

He does post with the email address that is listed as his on his official website [6]. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move of One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)

Hello to the members of the members of the Wikiproject for novels. Although I am not a member I wanted to make you aware of something that I have come across. Today User:XxJoshuaxX performed a series of moves and redirects to move the page for this book so that there would be a small "o" rather than a capital "O" for the word "over". Now I know that this is grammatically correct but I was under the impression that when it comes to book titles that we followed what was seen on the book cover (as seen on the cover used in the infobox for the novel) and/or what is used most often in referring to the book. Of the dozen or so websites that I have looked at to research this they all use the capital "O" for the word over. So many edits were made that I am not sure what to do to restore the page if that is what you want done. On the other hand if the members of the project are OK with this move then so be it. I just wanted to make you aware of the situation. The pages for the film and play have been moved also. Thanks for your time and efforts for looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 00:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented at the talk page, but I agree with your assessment in that the move from "Over to "over" was incorrect. The intention of the author always comes first! Hopefully it can be moved back with no problem. María (habla conmigo) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea - we need more work on answering these article challenges rather more than we need feeds / anouncements of them. However having said that it is possible that one will lead naturally to the other. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the plan is to notify individual members or for the bot to leave messages on the talk pages for the projects. I'd recommend specialized talk pages be created so that bot announcements don't interfere with other discussion. I still get chills from the Betacommandbot fiasco. I think it's a good idea; although we created our own notification system for disputed articles and images, only a few people were actually using it. This might draw attention to deletion attempts to a wider audience. 23skidoo (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of The Emperor's Children

I'd appreciate wider comment at Talk:The Emperor's Children regarding what is appropriate content regarding criticism of a book. Another editor wishes to refer to Amazon reader reviews as indicating "general reader response," and to quote something called the "Delete Key awards." Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Balzac FAC

The article about Honoré de Balzac's novel La Peau de chagrin has been at FAC for a week already and received only one actual vote. I thought maybe some folks from this 'project would like to weigh in. – Scartol • Tok 21:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD Notification Christian science fiction

Christian science fiction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian science fiction (1 August 2008)--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Novels participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on those media franchises which are multimedia as not to step on the toes of this one. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help us get back on solid footing. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. Thank you. - LA (T) 21:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Has anybody else noticed that this article is terrible? It seems to be somebody's essay about the origin of the novel, rather than an actual encyclopedia article about novels. It barely discusses the nineteenth century, and doesn't discuss the twentieth century at all, instead referring us to the article on modernism. At Talk:Novel I tried to lay out in more detail what's wrong with the article, but there's so much wrong that it's hard to even get a handle on it. The article is a total mess, and probably ought to be largely rewritten from scratch. john k (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. So am I correct in assuming that nobody at the novels wikiproject cares about the poor state of the article Novel? Sigh. john k (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Since you've gone through the effort of suggesting what needs to be done, perhaps folks are waiting for you to take the next natural step, WP:BOLD. If you feel an article is lacking and you have the knowledge and information to improve it, don't wait for others. Wikipedians are busy folk and it's not uncommon for articles to take 2-3 years to be fixed up (often only after they've been nominated for deletion, though it's unlikely an article on such a major topic as this would be headed for such a fate). 23skidoo (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The changes that the article needs are well beyond my ability to fix it. Notice "There's so much wrong that it's hard to even get a handle on it." I also was wondering if anybody agreed with me - validation is generally important to get the ball rolling on these kinds of things. I notice that I still have yet to receive any support from anybody. This is a wikiproject devoted to the novel. I'd think that making sure the article Novel was minimally decent would be of fairly high priority. john k (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Do I have to join to get involved with this?

No. Just Wikipedia:Be Bold. Is there something specific you wanted to do or get involved with? --maclean 23:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wanted to get involved in WikiProjectNovels Collaboration of the month, so I kinda of took helm and got the next project started. Working on Look Homeward, Angel, right now, just got get a few critical essays on it.--Robert Waalk (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Love You to Death

Could somebody check out if Love You to Death (novel) and Shadowland (novel) are about the same book. I stumbled over the second article because of that redirect and the content of the two stories seems to be the same as is the author. -- CecilK (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not about the same book...Shadowland (novel) is a sequel when Susannah aka Suze is older and has a job as a mediator.

Battle Royale

I keep coming across character articles from Battle Royale that appear to be nothing more than a non-notable summary of that character with no real-world context. Anyway, there are 42 character articles that I'd like to trim and merge into a character list, I'd like input from the group before I do it so I can have a consensus. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with categorizing fictional characters

Categories for Discussion has a series of discussions about whether to categorize certain specific types of fictional characters: double agents, dictators, characters with eidetic memory, et al. Advice from the Novels project would be valuable. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Task Force

I wanted to propose adding a Twilight Task Force to WikiProject:Novels, as it has had an extensive amount of worldwide hype about the series, and it wuld really benefit from a concentrated force. ~ Bella Swan? 23:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that some kind of group dedicated to all things Twilight would be productive and helpful, but is a taskforce the way to go? The only reason I ask is because films, spinoffs, fandoms, etc, will likely be included in the group's scope, all of which may or may not fit under the umbrella of WP:NOVELS. Since Harry Potter is comparably similar in cultural impact, and it has its own WikiProject, wouldn't it make sense that there be a Twilight WP? María (habla conmigo) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a task force would be a good idea, but I don't think a WP is appropriate. There really isn't much comparison to Harry Potter in terms of Wikipedia presence (right now) — Category:Twilight series currently contains 11 pages, while Category:Harry Potter has 9 subcategories alone. Currently the only Twilight article outside of WP:Novels is the film article; if a whole film series is made, and the category is expanded, perhaps the case for a Twilight WP could be discussed again. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, Mr., all good points. Before beginning a task force, however, perhaps we should poll to see how many users would be interested in joining? I can't say I'm a fan of the series, so I'll have to sit this one out. María (habla conmigo) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Should I just start a poll here, or is there a more appropriate place to put it since it will technically be a taskforce, not a WP? I'm also worried that people who are fans of the series probably wouldn't even know the poll exists if we put it on the WP Proposals page, so I'm thinking that I would leave a message on the talk pages of all the Twilight related articles concerning the poll. ~ Bella Swan? 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you're not actually proposing a WP, you shouldn't post at the Council. :) Leaving a note at the Twilight article talk pages to come to this thread and voice their interest sounds like a good idea. María (habla conmigo) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really having much experience with this sort of thing, would 9 be a good enought number of people to start with? I'm sure as the project moves along we'll get more, but a second opinion would be nice. ~ Bella Swan? 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so... I've got one, maybe two people in my task force, so nine should be awesome. =) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As a complete, unrelated topic, nice font choice in your sig. ;D -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Sign below this line if you would be interested in participating in a Twilight Task Force.

  1. ~ Bella Swan? 13:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Dessymona (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Andrea (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 00:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. ~ Distorted Fairytales (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (Yes, it WILL be constructive.)
  7. Am not a fan, but will try to help when I'm able. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. I've been reasonably active, particularly at the Twilight (novel) page. I would be willing to sign up for a Twilight task force. IceUnshattered [ t ] 23:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. I'm here to stop the vandalism and little fan girls from treating the talk page as a forum.Mooncrest (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Novels Banner needs amendment

I notice the {{NovelsWikiProject}} is managing to throw Template that are tagged as unassessed. The text correctly says that assessment is not needed however someones changes (John Carter's I think) have excluded "Templates" from functionally be treated this way. Can anyone (who is an Admin) correct this, I'm no so although I could I can't :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


See discussion on the members list. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members

WikiProject Novels Roll Call
Book collection.jpg

WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Greeley novel at AFD

Since the Disputed Novels sub-section has pretty much fallen into disuse, I'll post here that Angel Light (novel), a book by Andrew Greeleyis up for AFD here. The article is presently a one-line stub so perhaps someone familiar with the book could expand it. The nominator claims no reputable sources can be found, which I find hard to believe; I can't tell if the nom is questioning the existence of the book, which was established immediately upon entering the title into Google. 23skidoo (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't question if it existed. I said that I couldn't find any reliable sources. All I could find was online sale sites which is not reliable. Schuym1 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a Pub Weekly review quoted on Amazon. Surely that's a reliable source? john k (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to add the reference to the PW review to the article, thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, I'd say that any book reviewed by Publisher's Weekly or Booklist would be notable enough to have an article. john k (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be fair here, I wasn't intending to start a "shadow" AFD debate. These comments should more properly be placed on the AFD debate page itself (if it's still open - I haven't checked). 23skidoo (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Didn't we use to have a page/category that listed all the articles that needed cover images? I thought we did and I was working my way through that list awhile ago, but now I can't seem to find it... ~ Bella Swan? 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact user:Blathnaid as they handle 'Book cover images monitoring' and should know the location if no one else posts. Also you maybe interested in the position vacant to help Blathnaid with the Book covers at JobCentre - Boylo (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember one (that is not the say ....) however there are two categories that cover the same - or similar - ground. Try Category:Novel has infobox needing cover and Category:Novel has infobox needing 1st edition cover. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks Kevinalewis, that's exactly what I'm looking for. And as for the Job, I might take that up. ~ Bella Swan? 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Go for it! The more hands on deck the better. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Novel

A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Sword of Shannara

Ummm what is wrong with the infobox? Did I add a rogue space by accident? Or is something wrong with the infobox itself? Thanks and cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was this edit that caused it. --maclean 00:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Following this query on the infobox talk page, one stopgap solution would be to remove the <br> tag that is added between multiple ISBNs. It should stop the COinS markup from displaying as text, although I have no idea why it works. Hopefully the infobox talk page will yield a better solution (one that doesn't require edits to a lot of pages). Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 01:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a problem as there shouldn't be more than one ISBN. It should be the first edition (or under exceptional circumstances a "notable" edition) only. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Roll call and where to go from here

I'm so glad that nearly sixty members have responded to the project's first roll call; that's more than I was expecting! :) Soon I'll remove the list of "inactive" members and we can start fresh. Now that we are able to gauge the interest and possible productivity of the project, where should we go from here? A coordinator election has been announced for next month (October), but perhaps we should create discussion about what areas need the most work. Any opinions on the matter? María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the Roll Call - I have personally contacted a few (about 5 or 6) editors that I knew, with a reminder of the Roll Call. One has since signed up within minutes of the contact. I think we can do a little more in prompting people - it might be the notice didn't reach everyone or has been missed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally sent the message to everyone who was listed under "incumbent" (or at least I thought I did), and the newsletter also mentions the call. I don't think we should hound people about it, however; overexposure can create project fatigue and turn people off. María (habla conmigo) 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No hounding is not good, quite agree! I was just "straw polling" to see how well the roll call was working. I "think" I took a few from incumbent (2 or 3) and a few from inactive to message. But I am working from a shaky memory and don't want to spend my time checking my facts. Anyway, more strength to you and the crew. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

With the impending release of Wikipedia 0.7, a list of selected articles for release that fall within this project's scope has been compiled (available here). Permlinks of "release versions" for each selected article need to be submitted here by 20 October. As a new task for the project, I think it would be a worthwhile goal to try to improve many of these articles before that time, specifically:

  • Improve Start- and C-class articles to at least B-class
  • Improve Top-importance articles to at least GA status
  • Fix any problems for the 41 selected articles that have cleanup issues (see here).

Given the size of the list, such a task may require a large collaborative effort. But I think it's a worthwhile task that the project can accomplish. Thoughts? Liveste (talkedits) 03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a worthy project. Below are the 41 novels with cleanup tags. I notice a pattern. Most of them are tagged as "original research" because they contain plot summaries that are sourced to the book, or other sections sourced to the book itself. I really don't think most of these ought to be tagged in the first place. Seems to me that rules are trumping common sense if editors aren't allowed to just write a straightforward summary of a straightforward book. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just gone through these, the comment on the OR tags as being unnecessary is not really true in most of these cases as most are related to thematic, commentary type material, which does need to be verified. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake Kevin, I looked at Gatsby, Farewell to Arms and one other and mistakenly guessed I had a representative sample. That will teach me to be lazy. --JayHenry (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If you would like a bigger list of things that needs clean-up, fixed or revamped please check the some what new clean-up list

It's HUGE and any little bit of clean-up would help Jask99 (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also added this list to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Worklist#Cleanup_etc as a home for this information for the moment. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek novel up for AFD

Someone has put an AFD up for a Star Trek novel here. My concern is there are already other articles existing on other books in this series, and I'm not sure why they chose this one. It'll create a gap in the series if it's deleted. And right now the consensus appears to be shifting towards "listifying" which might end up in all other existing Trek novel articles disappearing. Possible precedent setter with potential to affect other article series such as those on Doctor Who, Simon Templar, James Bond, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am coming up with nothing on the book, all of the databases that I can check which usually always find some sources for novels at AFD are coming up with nothing. I found some sources for some of his other books but nothing for Antimatter (Star Trek novel) --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue here is that of completeness. When you have a series of books, especially a major ongoing series like that of Star Trek, if you pick and choose which ones to feature, it renders the coverage incomplete. For example, you have a series of books A, B, C, D, E ... Z. But because sources could not be located (and that doesn't mean they aren't out there) The listing only includes A, B, L, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z. As a result you end up with a bunch of redlinks and useless succession box-based templates. So is the answer to ban individual articles based on series? In my opinion you'd have to, and to avoid NPOV and COI that means it doesn't matter if it's Star Trek or James Bond or Jack Ryan or Sherlock Holmes ... out of fairness and equality, they'd all have to be "listified". All or none. Make up your minds. As for Antimatter, I'm looking at my copy now. It exists. And a Google search reveals plenty of blog-based reviews of this book, but Wikipedia's prejudice against blogs (which belongs back in 2002) renders these ineligible. Personally I don't care - I stopped adding book articles to Wikipedia long ago and am spending most of my energies on Wikia sites where folks aren't so anal about notability. 23skidoo (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This "all or nothing" formulation you create here makes absolutely no sense. Individual James Bond or Sherlock Holmes books are pretty clearly of greater individual notability than individual Hardy Boys or Star Trek novels. There's absolutely no basis for the idea that listifying the Star Trek novels would require us to listify every other set of articles on a series of books. This is not to say that the Star Trek books should necessarily be listified, just that I don't recognize this dichotomy you create as being legitimate. john k (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The first half of your statement violates WP:NPOV. To place any book (from a series or a standalone) above another book in this fashion requires a POV judgement call. 23skidoo (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Just FYI the Animatter AFD has so far failed to reach a consensus either way, so it has been relisted here. 23skidoo (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration

This months nominations are up, I suggest working either on "Humboldt's Gift", or "The Counterfeiters". Both are important novels, but Humboldt's Gift, Saul Bellow's highly praised Pulitzer Prize winning novel, is a complete stub and is in much more need of immediate work and filling out than any of the novels up for nomination, both are notable, extremely notable, and both were written by Nobel Prize winners who will both go down as being among that countries two or three best novelists of the 20th Century. Here's a link to our page: , and I also move, among the members here and of the group, that discussion over collaborations of the month be moved to the discussion page of the group's dicussion page, not here as was redirected from the page.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bellow is really one of the two or three best American novelists of the century? Ten best, sure, but two or three best seems hyperbolic. Gide might fit for France - other than Proust, that designation seems pretty up in the air, I suppose. (Humboldt's Gift also probably isn't the most important Bellow novel, either. If we focused on novels entirely because of Pulitzer status, we'd have to prioritize A Fable higher than The Sound and the Fury)... john k (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Humboldt's gift is one of Bellow's most important novels. Who can you say is better than Bellow in the later half of the twentieth century. Don Delillo? Cormac McCarthy, Anne Proulx, Phillip Roth? Thomas Pynchon is the only one of the five who could really challenge Bellow, but even Pynchon hasn't won a Nobel Prize, yet. For the entire twentieth century I would probably place third, personally, behind Faulkner and Steinbeck. But, as for your other statements, the Puliztre prize section is a very important section, and it's a very visible, we should maintain good, FA status articles on them as it shares, along with the National Book Award, a status as the most prominent yearly award in American Literature.--Robert Waalk (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, and the delay in posting here. In light of the current review of the members list, I wanted to start a discussion here about the possibility of reviewing this project's Collaboration system. Given the declining activity on NOVCOTM, I hoped that by posting here the discussion would reach a larger audience; of course, general discussion about NOVCOTM is best done on the Collaboration talk page.
From previous posts, I thought it might be worth trying alternative formats for the Collaboration Department. The current collaboration format is widely used in WikiProjects that have these departments, but many of them have since fallen inactive. I was thinking that we could develop collaborations that could be flexible when needed, but that also have specific aims towards which contributors could aim (as opposed to open-endedly "improving" an article). For example:
  • Listing concrete goals for each collaboration: e.g., promote to FA/GA, expand to B-class. We could even have multiple collaborations based on these, e.g., FA collaboration, B-class collaboration (a couple of Collaboration departments have done this).
  • Either reducing the time for each collaboration, so that we don't have a lot of stale requests, or implementing a system whereby a collaboration would start once the previous one is complete (or once the previous one has reached its deadline).
  • Having a list of regular Collaboration editors that would help out with whatever articles are chosen.
These are just some example ideas that I thought might help boost project collaborations. However, I don't think that anyone would want to spend too long "discussing" changes, so if no substantial consensus for reviewing the Collaboration Department emerges within 48 hours, then I'll have no problem with keeping the system the way it is. Comments welcomed. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think first that the way you have stepped in to help is great. Also the best idea of those above is "list of regular Collaboration editors". Followed quickly by "Listing concrete goals". We could go to a fortnightly collaboration which some do. If we can recruit such it would help. I personally think (though much experience here) is that the problem is a more general one. That is of disparate interest. Wikipedia is made up of too few enthusiasts for the basic concept, too many either being "fandom", hobby horse riders, barrack room lawyers or by far the largest group, occasional laissez-faire editors. It might be that the task forces are a better meeting place for collaborative effort or at least places to advertise the latest collaboration. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How active are all of the task forces though? The Shannara task force has me and Zachary Crimsonwolf...but Zachary has other demands upon his time and is not on a lot.... So it's mostly just me. I know that this task force might be the only one eith this problem, but it's just a question. =) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
They vary, we need some Project Evangelists out there who can drum up good editor support. Ownership and responsibility are real issues over wikipedia as whole. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Good thinking. I think it's a good idea. Having a goal of raising up an article a few statuses.--Robert Waalk (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Maintaining interest in contributors anywhere on Wikipedia will always be an issue where such contributions are voluntary and open-ended (of course, if we were paid to contribute ...). I wasn't sure how to address such a general "problem", although project outreach and incentives are always useful ways to keep editors interested. I've always thought that small changes every now and then can also refresh interest in long-term endeavours.
That said, perhaps a review of NOVCOTM should proceed one small step at a time. I'll add a section for editors to sign up to be regular contributors to project collaborations – all editors are welcome to sign up. I'll also recommend setting concrete aims for new collaborations, such as promoting to GA, as I believe having something specific to aim for helps to focus people (okay, this is one-and-a-half steps ... oh well). I'm eager to get the next collaboration going, so it may be worth spending the next month or so hammering out the details of any proposed larger changes (e.g., shortening collaboration times, or switching to a goal-based collaboration system) – probably best done on the Collaboration talk page.
A couple of other things. First, I wonder if we should place a maximum time that a nomination can remain a candidate. We have a couple of articles that were nominated over a year ago and I wonder just how interested nominators still are in these collaborations. Personally, I'd suggest a year. Also, if there are no serious objections, I'd like for the upcoming collaboration to extend to the end of October. From that point on, collaborations should be chosen by the first day of each month. A defined starting time would be helpful. Again, comments welcomed.
Let's see how things go. And last but not least, if anyone else has ideas on improving the Collaborations Department, then by all means don't keep them to yourself :) We'd love to hear from you. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For reasons I've discussed elsewhere, I've proposed the article Novel for collaboration. It's dreadful, and ought to be high priority. I imagine nobody cares, though. john k (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Olaf Simons is apparently the main contributor to the article (so says his note on the members page), so I'm sure he cares. Perhaps a note to tell him of the requested collab will help spur further input? María (habla conmigo) 19:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Novel should have the highest priority for this project. In light of the impending release of Wikipedia 0.7, and the 20 October deadline for articles, I would personally like to see this article become the next collaboration of the month. I'll add my support, but if it doesn't receive two more votes of support by the end of 20 September (UTC), then I'll put Steppenwolf (with four votes) as the next collaboration. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FA candidacy of The Sword of Shannara

The Sword of Shannara has been nominated for to be a featured article. Please leave comment or questions on the review page, and help to make this featured! Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FAC closed as not promoted. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Belchamber by Howard Sturgis

I realise I have found conflicting info regarding Edith Wharton's criticism of Belchamber by Howard Sturgis. For my article on Howard Sturgis, I'd found a criticism from Jstor which suggested that she'd praised it. I can't retreive the link any more, possibly because I am not on campus. Anyway, on the article for the novel I cite a recent article taken from the Times Literary Supplement, which suggests she disliked the book, as Henry James did. I have the copy of the article with me. Should I change the Howard Sturgis page? (If you can access the Jstor article, that'd be useful.)Zigzig20s (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can access the JSTOR article, "Howard Sturgis, Henry James, and Belchamber", and others. From what I gather, Borklund says that Wharton was one of few who "praised the book". Another article from JSTOR, from Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Sep., 1965), pp. 194-198, states that she "tried vainly to convince Scribner's" to publish it. This book states that she considered Belchamber a "triumph". This one quotes her as saying the book is "very nearly in the first rank". I've found a few other books at Google that say something along these lines. What does the article from the Times have to say about it? María (habla conmigo) 19:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It says, "Belchamber, Edmund White tells us in the introduction to this new edition, "is the portrait of a sissy and was initially disliked by everyone". Among its critics were Henry James and Edith Wharton ("who should have known better", clucks White), both of them intimates of the author - who was a sissy, but a popular one."
Perhaps Edmund White got it wrong, or the journalist misphrased his sentence - a criticism can be good or bad, but here it suggests that it was bad, doesnt it?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It does suggest that, yes, but it's the Times quoting a non-contemporary introduction of a book by Edmund White. This happens to be less credible than contemporary accounts and even Wharton's own words. If you did add Wharton's supposed criticism to the article, it is made clear that the inference is White's. Other sources seem to say she was nothing but supportive of her friend, but perhaps more research is needed. One article I quickly read stated a review of Belchamber that Wharton wrote for The Bookman -- this would be an ideal (and primary) source. María (habla conmigo) 19:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I concur, Wharton seems to have praised the book; it would be interesting to read White's introduction to the recent reprint, and see who got it wrong - him or Daniel Mallory. I think Henry James really didn't like the novel, though. Would you change the article with a reference or more, to say Wharton praised the book please?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. Do you mean the article for the novel or Sturgis? María (habla conmigo) 19:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The novel. The Sturgis article had a reference from Jstor that she praised it.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed both of the articles up, so feel free to change/fix anything. I hope they will be expanded in due time, though; my cursory search shows there may be enough info out there. I even found an image of James, Wharton and him from 1904 via a GI search. It may not be copyrighted, but it's worth a look. María (habla conmigo) 20:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Why did you remove the reqphoto tag from the Belchamber talkpage?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Because the "needs-infobox-cover=yes" tag in the project template already explains the need for a bookcover image. Also, I don't believe reqphoto is to be used for fair use images. María (habla conmigo) 20:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it be fair use if I took a picture of the first page with the title? (I'm thinking of ordering the White reprint.)Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A scan of the title page in the first edition would be okay because the work is in the public domain. Later editions (after 1923) are different, however, and are copyrighted. The title page of the reprint would still undoubtedly be under fair use. María (habla conmigo) 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt be able to do that; hopefully someone else will.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge WikiProject Raymond E. Feist series into WikiProject Novels as a task force

Hey, just recently an editor has suggested that WikiProject Raymond E. Feist series by merged into this project as a task force. I thought id bring it here to see if anyone has any comments in regards to this suggestion. the Feist project is very inactive and has a low member count (me being one of those members). Now i dont no how to merge the project into a task force, but i fully support the idea of merging. Salavat (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good notion given the low editor count and the possibility of cross pollination of activity between task forces. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Expert Attention needed

Can I draw peoples attention to this page

It is fed by tagging the article for expert attention with our project name in the tag. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Location of this page.

I'm sure this must be a stupid question but why is this page located where it is (Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum) rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, which is just a redirect here? It seems rather unnecessary to me.

If there is no good reason, I propose moving it back (assuming this is possible, what with archives and such). Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason for the move! It is a generalised forum for discussion. (it's talk page being available for technical issues surrounding the page.) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd be more likely to say no reason to not move it... a talk page is the standard across (as far as I know) almost every other WikiProject. And the talk page is not used for technical issues—it's a redirect here. At any rate, you'd get the addition of a "New section" link, which would mean there'd be no reason to have the separate link in-page that we have now. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The one you mention, the redirect is only "fairly" recently a redirect. The one I was meaning Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum is for descussion of the technical merits etc of this page. In fact precisely this type of discussion was envisaged to be there. I can see the "+" or "new section" arguement is really the only one. Otherwise it is just a lot of work to more everything, all the archives for consistency and all the links the point here. IT can be done I just don't see the value. We can spend our time more profitably. Most I;m sure don't even realise the location (with the redirect) isn't a true talk page. Nearly all main forums used to be set up on there own pages like this. Just history but there it is. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to update this page.

I've found this talk page to be messy and confusing, so I've created a proposal at User:Mr. Absurd/Novels talk. I've made a new archives box, which stretches across the whole page, and moved the other information into a {{tmbox}} to clean it up a bit. If it's generally liked, I'll update this page... any thoughts? Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this space exists here rather than at a talk subset, but is it necessary to change the location? Would new users find it confusing? It's hard for me to judge, since I'm used to it, and the talkpage link redirects here. As for changing the design, I agree that your version is less cluttered, although the separate archival links are confusing; they almost run together and it's difficult to read. María (habla conmigo) 12:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I do like the new archive box BUT not were you have relocated it. The first thing to draw the eye with page as is - is to "Start a new discussion" "Bottom" with a link. In your new version the first thing is the talk archives. If we did a hierarchy for a talk page I think it would be 1. Discussion 2. Contents of current discussion. 3 Archived discussions. 4 misc links to other project places Jask99 (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The sequence you give "Jask99" is roughly what is presented across the top of the Forum page currently - unless you have something else in mind when you made the comment. I'm with "María" on her comment about the archive box. Stylistically yours looks nicer however there is less functional clarity (where do the links between date ranges end and start etc). When you ("Mr. Absurd") said messy and confusion what had you "specifically" in mind. Personally I don't find your changes any less confusing. Again tham might be because I am used to the existing scheme; but I don't think so. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
One other comment, the archive box format is not that uncommon on such pages. I.e. fairly familiar last time I looked. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
And yet another Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history has a format which may become necessary after inclusion of too many more archives. A link to a page of archive file links. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well look at that my list is what is up there, should have checked before typing. So some middle ground because the top is a bit messy. Could we just straighten up the boxes. Example move the "Start a new discussion box" and the smaller "Novel project" to the middle like you would for a title to a paper, and then with the other three boxes make the tops of all three level with the Contents box with equal white spacing in between. If I was using a word processing program this would be a quick simple thing but I have no idea how to do it on Wikipedia or if it's possible. Jask99 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of The Sword of Shannara

A peer review for The Sword of Shannara is open; it can be found here. Please leave comments or questions! Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, recently i've been doing only reverts so i though i should do something more constructive for a change. This is why i started a major rewrite of Les_Rougon-Macquart. I structured the article and added some informations. However, as I'm not a native English speaker, i would like you to review the article and correct the grammar and style. Even though it would be nice to have another Zola fan who can edit this article, I don't think you need to know anything about him to improve the style. Anyway, I won't touch this article for some days, so you can edit without fear of conflict. Thanks in advance. Ksempac (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) P.S : I'm new here, so i hope i put this in the right section.

You did fine, and I'll take a look at it as soon as I can...though I have a lot of schoolwork today, so it might be awhile... Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would agree. Good work! (if only I could speak / write other languages as you appear to do with English! Sigh!) I have just gone through the series of article - and Zola's other material and made a few changes and tagged what needed it. I'm no fan of the "Books of..." category name though (albeit not yours). The norm is more like "Les_Rougon-Macquart (novel series)" or "Les_Rougon-Macquart series". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick copy-edit (quite a few tense issues, unencyclopedic wording/phrases, etc), but more references are definitely needed in order to verify a lot of the added information. Critical analysis, historical connections and particularly Zola's intentions motivation need to be backed up by reliable sources from reputable, third party sources. Very interesting article, but a little research would go a long way! María (habla conmigo) 14:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite so. My aim was to encourage a fairly new editor in their efforts. Everything you say is correct as usual! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to respond directly to you, Kevinalewis, although it ended up that way. :) I'm glad such an important literary article is being worked on! María (habla conmigo) 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-edit ! I knew tenses weren't right, i had a lot of troubles figuring out which was the most suitable for this kind of article. About references, there are part of my TODO list : Instead of pointing to the numerous links in French, I'm trying to find sources in English. There aren't many so that's gonna take some time to collect and organize them.Ksempac (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Last thing : Don't hesitate to be strict/"harsh" when you talk about the article, you won't offend me. When i said i was new, i meant to say i was new to this project so I wasn't sure how you did things (i actually made a small mistake by top-posting this section instead of bottom-posting). My account is only 2 years old and i didn't edit much, but that's only because I didn't have much time for that. I've been lurking and following Wikipedia's discussions for a lot more time than that so i know quite a lot about policies and guidelines ;) Ksempac (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep us informed on progress and we will try to help and advise. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 06:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Tenses can be tricky, especially in regards to articles that include both fictional and non-fiction material. In the case of Les Rougon-Macquart, the historical and background information should be in past tense (i.e. "Zola was influenced by Balzac") while the plot details should be (for the most part) in present tense per WP:WAF. WAF is a great help, by the way, and may help you with your todo list. :) If you need any help finding reliable refs, let me know. María (habla conmigo) 12:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I've been busy working on this article for 3 days and now it's time to stop and ask you again what you think about this article. It's still not finished, but I don't want to write a long article without some intermediary checks by others. I'm especially concerned by the fact that many references are in French, since they are unpublished letters or prefaces that didn't make it in the English version used at Projet Gutenberg. I had to translate some of them myself and I'm not good at it (I may ask for better translation on Wikipedia:Translations). My TODO list (by order of importance) :

  • Add references for the Story section
  • Add a section about reception, both when it was published and now
  • Create an SVG version of the family tree
  • Expand summary
  • Expand the section about the preparations of the novels

Any criticism/advice/copy-edit is welcome. Thanks in advance Ksempac (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All this looks to be heading in the right direction. All I would say aesthetically the page looks a little cluttered with images. I would rearrange, or even thin a few of the them. The other way of course would be to provide more text copy which would have a similar effect. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement at The Clique series needing more input

After an AfD on multiple articles for the various books in The Clique series, I started a discussion (per suggestions in that AfD) to look at merging all of the individual novel articles, except the first, into the series articles. As one editor noted, there is precedence for it at Private (novel series), and as I noted, this could result in a single strong article for the series instead of a bunch of plot summaries. Thus far four editors have felt this merge would is appropriate, while two have disagreed (only one of whom cited any real reason, however). Looking over the discussion, I feel there is a consensus to merge, while one of the two who disagreed with the merge feels that is has not and is demanding the discussion be stopped all together after an earlier attempt to disallow it from even starting. Discussion is: Talk:The Clique series#Merges and views from the project would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Novels by setting?

How about a novels by setting category? I didn't want to just create it without consultation because it would obviously involve a massive amount of categorization and therefore wouldn't work unless it had broad support. Examples would include Category:Novels set in Edinburgh, Category:Novels set in ancient Rome, Category:Novels set on fictional planets, Category:Novels set in the Middle Ages and so forth. Most of these would obviously come under larger categories like the already existing Category:Historical novels, novels set in Scotland, novels set in fictional places etc. --Helenalex (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I had in mind the ones which are clearly set somewhere specific for most or all of the story, but now I can see some novel pages ending up with a dozen 'Novels set in...' categories, not to mention the arguments about cities that aren't named, fictionalised versions of real places, etc etc. Sticking with lists is probably a better idea. --Helenalex (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the review not showing up?

Look at this review does not show up there, but it DOES show up when you click the 'edit' link.... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it. XD Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Series Article Template

Is there an article template for novel series that I can use? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean {{Infobox Novel series}}? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Or do you mean a template like the one that is at the bottom of The Sword of Shannara? ({{Shannara books}}, then you'd have to adapt that for your series) -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No more like the first suggestion but also more like the Article Template except for series. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Use the first one and then adapt it for your series...? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 04:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

I've just been having a look at her books and I really think we should try to tidy them up. Half of them are only Stub-Class and a few books haven't been started at all. I think we should all take a better look at this, and try to improve the articles. Ladywitchthought (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Blyton or her work, but from the look of List of books by Enid Blyton, she was quite prolific! Perhaps you can single out one or two of her most popular series and nominate them for collaboration? You may also want to contact the Children's literature WikiProject. María (habla conmigo) 12:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1800s novels category - or 1800-1809?

The article 1800s has been renamed [1800-1809]]- see this edit - so should Category:1800s novels be renamed similarly? PamD (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so; it was renamed only for Dab type reasons (and another put in its place) and would look extra-ordinarily odd in a list of categories for each century - but I see what you mean though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)