Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

As I Lay Dying disambig

A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on an disambig redirect page which is associated with William Faulkner. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel.

The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term" and if one of the topics isn't the primary topic. That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, the book is the primary topic. In addition, the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, meaning there aren't three true items on that disambig page. As a result, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article and allow "As I Lay Dying" to either be the main article or redirect to the main article.

If people want to change this guideline, that is fine. But to do that, we need to have a true consensus building discussion. Please go to this link [1] to voice your opinion on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Collaboration of the Month: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

Hi everyone. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz has been chosen as the Novels Collaboration of the Month for January 2009. It is a former featured article, but is currently rated B-class. With such a popular novel (adapted into an even more popular film), this should be one of the easier collaborations. All editors are invited to help improve the article: it would be nice to see it restored to FA status, or at least GA. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot Issue in Iris Murdoch's The Philosopher's Pupil

The article on this book states that Adam is George's son. This is incorrect, as Adam is the son of Brian McCaffrey, George's brother. This should be fixed because it is incorrect.

Things Fall Apart needs your help

Things Fall Apart IMHO has some issues with inadequate cites and apparent original research. Article has many un-cited assertions.
Additionally (something that I don't recall seeing on Wikipedia before), many of the cites for opinions and interpretations are apparently cited to the novel itself, rather than to any work of criticism or analysis. See for example the last paragraph of the section "Literary significance and reception".
Could project members please review this article? Thanks. -- (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Current image of Milan Kundera on Wikipedia

Hello. I don´t believe, that the person on the photo in Kundera´s article is really him. Here [2] [3] [4] [5] you can find some photos of him, and here is a French interview with Kundera from 1968. Our photo is from 1954 (fourteen years earlier than the video) - Kundera was 25 years old in that time, and that person looks older... In my opinion, the image bears no resemblance to Milan Kundera. Can someone help me to resolve this, please? Thanks --Vejvančický (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the same man to me, and the source seems reputable. Same nose, same eyes, same receding hairline. There is a difference of a number of years in the photos and video you provide, so it's hard to tell for sure. FYI, you'll probably get more of a response and/or discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. This WikiProject is for novels, not for the guys who write them. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... It´s not easy to find out some photos of young Kundera. I rather disagree, I´ll try to ask on WP Biography as well. I supposed, that participants of this project could have been more familiar with that topic... Sorry. And thank you María, of course. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Twelve Kingdoms

The Twelve Kingdoms had the {{NovelsWikiProject}} banner remove because it is "out of scope". Does this mean that this wikiproject does not handle Japanese literature? Or that teen/adolescent literature is not in scope? (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No it just looks like I made a mistake. I thought it was Manga, Anime or a graphical novel, my bad. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Alerts?

I feel that spoiler alerts should be included on a routine basis (at least on top of any 'plot summary' sections). Consider for example Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro.--Innerproduct (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree myself - however the policy on these things here is currently that if anyone reads an article on a novel they should "expect spoilers" and should automatically know to avoid reading them. Don't follow that logic myself. However the argument that holds a bit more water is that this is an encyclopaedia and all information considered notable should be included for anyone researching the topic. Such spoiler alerts are more the realm of fandom rather than an encyclopaedia practice, which I have some sympathy with. Anyway this is a huge issue in wikipedia. If you wish to fight it be my guest, just be prepared for a fight. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you've already been directed to Wikipedia:Spoiler, but if you haven't—well, now you have. Kevinalewis is somewhat correct in saying that it was (at one point) a "huge" issue, but as it is essentially no longer up for debate, there isn't really an option to "prepare for a fight". Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not unless the editor wishes to start a new one of course! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fear and Loathing

This has been irritating me for a little while, this book recounts the events of what happened on his trip to Las Vegas, and is therefore not a novel, it's more non-fiction than fiction. He was a journo, not a novelist. This was just one long article, that was run as two articles in Rolling Stone, someone do something.Will Thompson (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm a little confused...what are you bugged about? That it is tagged for this project? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, essentially, it shouldn't be.Will Thompson (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article says that it is a roman à clef, which means that it is non-fiction, but "behind a facade of fiction". So I think that it falls under this project's scope. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
What Ed said; Fear and Loathing is technically an autobiographical novel, much in the way that The Bell Jar or Little Women are. Just because they are based somewhat on truth (taken from the author's own experiences) does not automatically disqualify it from also being a work of fiction. María (habla conmigo) 03:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I would argue otherwise, but oh well. I have the wonderful ability to always be correct. But I also have the ability to bow out in the face of a far less, how should I say it, apathetic person. You have just made a very powerful enemy, friend. No, no, I'm just kidding. Or am I? Is he joking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will.M.Thompson (talkcontribs)

WP:BK Notability

There are currently two discussions on-going about possible changes to the book notability guidelines that may be of interest to project members. The first, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Sales figures are not listed as a case for notability, is a discussion on whether sales figures should be considered as a sign of notability. The second, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Translations = Notability questions whether the number of times a book is translated should be considered a new criteria of notability. Your input would be valuable here. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Novel Character List AfD

List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant has been nominated for deletion. As it is a list of characters for a novel, notification to the novel project seemed appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible spam of ISFDB

Hi i dont no if this can be considered spam but User:JLaTondre has recently been adding links for ISFBD on many authors pages, [6]. I just thought id bring it up for any comments. Salavat (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think these are ok - they are entered as "External links" which is about right. I'll bow to others on this though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

City of Thieves, a novel

Hey has anyone read this book before? I need to create an infobox but I don't really know how to. CFountain (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Insert the template on this page: Template:Infobox Book into the article and fill in the blanks. Use the example on the template pages if you get stuck for what your meant to put in. Salavat (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It's just I don't know much about the book. I only read it--CFountain (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I find a good place to find infobox type info in...GrahamHardy (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright i added the remaining detail into the infobox. believe it or not but the cover artist is called Shout. Salavat (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
it should be City of Thieves (novel) - but the article has been culled for copyright vio reasons. Rewrite with references but not with whole chunks of copied text. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I sign us up. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Books by year subcategories

Any idea why Category:1728 books does not appear in Category:Books by year ? indeed lots of years (with members) appear to be missing...GrahamHardy (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I "think" it is because you are seeing a work in progress - the 99th century etc. are being changed to 99th-century and other changes. some are changed others are not. Buffering and everything comes in to effect. Let it settle down for a while.

Military fiction

Is there a Military fiction wikiproject? (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of however we have been thinking of setting up a Joint work group with the Military History project for sometime - just not done yet. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
What areas would that putative workgroup cover? (should it ever come to pass) (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia_talk:MHCOORD#Military_fiction.
Also, to answer your question, I'd say for sure all realistic military fiction (which actually already falls under the MILHIST banner - didn't know that :/). For MILHIST to accept covering things like Star Wars might be a small stretch.
IMO, there are two major problems here: where is the line drawn for inclusion, and who wants to set it up, tag the articles, and administer it? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem only occurs if it's categorized under WPMILHIST, if it's categorized under Lit or Novels, the realisticness doesn't apply, does it? (like Fantasy Wars... The War of the Ring, for instance) From what I garnered from WPMILHIST, the war covered also has to be a real world war... (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - this group would have the same restriction - your other example would be under the purview of the Fantasy task force, others might be under the Science fiction task force. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
What about war between imaginary country A and imaginary country B using realistic period technology of a given era? This appears to not fall under WPMILHIST, but is still military fiction. (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
But not Military History. There are too many combinations to be able to cater for every single one between genres. So I would leave such speculative environments where I suggested earlier. Unless we went our own way and included everything vaguely militarily and that would include "vast" numbers of SF material which already have a home. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


Dear all, I have spent the last days on a revision of the novel-article I had begun years ago. It had stood there as a fragment, and I had hoped a colleague would write the second part. Now that I have tried to end it, I feel most uneasy about it. You might find it is too academic. Maybe also it does what it is supposed to do: give first year students of literature a broad picture of the genre and its importance throughout history. The article is basically a free translation of the German parallel-article - I will have made loads of mistakes wherever I thought in German. In case the article finds at least a bit of appreciation I would be extremely delighted to see it revised so that high-schoolers can read it. The article is on my watchlist. Questions in <!--hidden text--> will reach me. Language revisions will relief me. A bit exhausted... I should return to the correcting work I have blatantly neglected... --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The only bad thing is a lack of in-line citations. However, that being said, the article did need a re-write, so thanks :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
in-line citations - insert hidden requests, where you want to have them. The early modern part is basically a condensed version of work I published a couple of years ago, the rest is a reflection of ongoing work. I was actually wondering where to set footnotes - this is mostly something to be done in the sub-articles on individual authors or on sub-branches of the novel. The present article is rather designed to offer a larger framework and the framework is difficult to reference. A world history of fiction is not written - that's why it is tempting to write one - I did not use one in order to write this article. I rather wondered: how would one write such an article with different histories of national literature in mind. What would a world history look like that combines French, German and English literary histories? What I needed was a kind of larger frame with a few fundamental developments to focus on. The large frame will not be referenced. Individual statements? I will enjoy referencing them wherever you feel you'd like to have that done here rather than in sub-articles. --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:V (which is policy), "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I would start referencing paraphrased statements or direct quotes and go from there. I don't know how the German wiki handles referencing, but here we're rather stringent. Information that might be construed as original research should have inline citations, whether it's referenced (or will be referenced) at a "subarticle" or not. Even if the information is present in another article, if it came from another source and is not common knowledge, it should be referenced. This is why it's so much easier to reference an article while writing it, rather than trying to do it retroactively. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict? That was unexpected...) Well, would you like to take it to FAC? If so, you are going to have to reference everything - if you leave the referencing to sub-articles, your FAC won't pass. If you got an entire paragraph from a single source, you can just put one reference at the end of a para.
But even if you don't want to take it to FAC, can you just reference what you can? This will allow the high-school and college students who are reading this to see where they might get more information :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No I don't mind referencing it (and know the guidelines), it will just take a long while and create a huge mess in some areas. I have two heaps of student papers on my desk which I have dreadfully neglected and the next bit of work will be waiting as soon as these are handed back. It will be work every now and then I am afraid. This is just not the Richard Head article where you know with precision where each statement comes from and where can you produce the footnotes while putting the information together. This is rather a broad perspective you create on the background of a couple of years of reading. Yet, I'll try. --Olaf Simons (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry then - I wasn't sure if you did know the guidelines. :/
And don't worry about time...every article on Wikipedia is a work in progress! Whenever you have the time, and whenever you feel like doing it, reference it; Wikipedia does not take precedence over real life! Thanks so much for your contributions, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BK and criteria 1 (multiple reviews)

There is currently a discussion occurring at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#multiple review do not mean notability questioning the validity of the first criteria of WP:BK and proposing changes to remove reviews as a viable indicator of notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Percy Jackson and the Olympians help

Hi, new to editing, so I'm looking for any help I can get. The articles on this series of books are fairly disappointing so I've decided to try and help them out a bit. I've been figuring things out as I go, but was just wondering if I could get a little advice and/or help (maybe where to look, I'm a pretty quick learn) in how you recommend the pages to be set up. Thanks Hurricanewest (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 42nd Parallel

I'm writing the Italian page about The 42nd Parallel. I noticed there is a discrepancy in a date reported by Dos Passos: Monday, April 16th, 1904, but on 1904 the April 16th was a Saturday. To be sure I even checked the NYT obituaries of these days. I'm unable to find a citation source about this error: is it possible I'm the first one since 1930 to get it? Because in this case it would be an original research and I can't report it. Marco Bernardini (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it would be OR if only becuase it's so obvious! I mean, no one may have talked about it in any RS, but even a first grader knows the difference between Monday and Saturday (if only becuase the good cartoons are on the latter day ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs of a Geisha

I'm just curious as to what we should do with Memoirs of a Geisha? The plot summary is almost a novel in itself. I do remember looking at this page two years ago, and it was not that long. There used to be a template for this, "excessively detailed plot summary", but I can't find it now. Anyway, if anyone could help trim it down or at least give advice on how to, that'd be great. Dasani 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Added the {{plot}} tag - don't know the work myself to do anything more than a crude hack edit - so thought best left to others. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've rewritten the plot summary to about 700 words. I used the plot summary at Memoirs of a Geisha (film) as a rough start, and added information as needed. Feel free to make mass changes to it. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 12:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that - :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness

Hoping this is the right place to raise the matter, I am very concerned about the content of the entry for Conrad's novel. Vast chunks of it are identical to the text of an external web site. It is not clear whether the Wikipedia entry is cut and pasted from someone else's thesis, and is thus plagiarism, or that we are looking at the original of a thesis here in Wiki, and that the external site has been created for the purpose of establishing bogus citation anchors. Either way, it seems to me that something very wrong is going on. If anyone can think of a third (innocent) explanation, I would be intrigued to hear it. Grubstreet (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Raise this on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. They have much more knowledgeable people on this kind of stuff, as they deal with it all of the time. Good catch and cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Have done as you suggested. Grubstreet (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Should be Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions. thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The very helpful Moonriddengirl has identified this as a copyright issue and taken action. Grubstreet (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Collector Collector

Newly created article The Collector Collector (will do infobox/image shortly) but its notability has been questioned. I have added some bits to the associated discussion page; anybody any comments (I guess they should be added to the article discussion rather than here), Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed_novel_articles which I guess I ought to use instead of here; I'll have a go nowGrahamHardy (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Successfully added (I think) ; feel free to delete this discussion articleGrahamHardy (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Working on a Series

I am new to Wikipedia, but had been eager to try it out for a couple years since making an account. The idea of encyclopedias is an old fascination, made all the more enticing (particularly relevant to Wikipedia in my view) since reading Borges' Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius).

I have recently been cutting my teeth on a few writer and novel related articles, which seemed to be an area I was best suited to for initial writing and editing, given my early undergraduate academic training in literary theory, and professional background in managing large documentation projects, DTP, structural and copy editing and technical writing.

Most recently I reworked The War of the Worlds and A Princess of Mars, and also Barsoom, mostly working on coherency, value as a general reference for a novice to the subject, solid academic sourcing and attention to the flow of the copy. I started out by trying to find references for what was already there, and got extremely frustrated, because all these articles had almost no sourcing, and I had no idea where the previous editors had got the ideas from. In some cases the citatation that were there had very little or nothing to do with what was on the page or in a few cases were links to nowhere. Trying to provide secondary sources, as the tag on one of the articles suggested, ended up being an exercise in almost completely rewriting the article, because that was the only way to get prose and citation to match in such a ways that the article made sense.

I was not comfortable doing this. I had imagined legions of eager editors watching the page ready to swoop down and challenge the work, but no one seemed to object (near total silence through each project in fact) and once I had started the article, it seemed to be shaping up into something a little stronger so I kept going. In the case of Barsoom I was interested in getting some experience in covering a series and the background rather than just a specific work. These pages are by no means finished as I have left them, but they gave me a bit of experience in the medium and hopefully put another layer on the foundation on the pages for other editors to build on. If I have crossed something taboo here in my extensive revisions, or railroaded, someone please do tell me.

I have been toying with the idea of working on the Narnia articles, or at least one of them, as start. I work at a fair sized university and have access to a fairly well stocked library, which includes a good 10-15 books on Lewis' fantasies, many of them specific to the series, so I will probably have a decent range of facts and commentary building bricks with which to work on the articles. Much as I might try and focus on just one article, I am likely to grasp, and have to hand, material suitable for many of them, which may well be easy to add to many pages rather than just the one, either in a specific or generic sense, particularly if my research puts me in the general 'head space'.

My question for those with more experienced than I, relates to both the Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom articles and the Narnia pages, both being series. What I am concerned about is how to tackle an entire series of books which may all share some common aspects. For example, for narnia, a general context of literature for children, the background of the time of writing, some common themes may be common to some if not all of the seven articles.

My question I guess is ... does each article have to unique and stylistically different. I can quite imagine taking a generic section which might apply to all seven books and placing it on all seven pages... but does this give the articles a 'rubber stamp' aspect, perhaps to be avoided. And would this trample over the good work other have already contributed, perhaps not thinking as I might be, as a whole project rather than just the one book. This is perhaps something tackled elsewhere, but I have not come across it yet. Frankly any general guidance on this would help. I am not intending to rewrite every Barsoom and Narnia article on Wikipedia, I don't have time, my other current work could take me away from this space for a while at any time too - but I am guessing I will do a decent amount of work on this over the next few weeks or months. I would also not want my research to go to waste and avoid touching related articles as if they were somehow hermetically sealed spaces, unrelated to one another. Mesmacat (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer all off this, there is just too much here. What I can say is we welcome anyone who has the serious approach to editing and contributing that you plainly do. If I understand the series issues correctly, I would place common material in the relevant series article (maybe making references to it in the individual title articles) and then be free to augment each article as it comes otherwise. Yes consistency is important and this is why we have article templates to get people started and style guidelines. If you have further questions or want to debate any particular point, it might be better to ask "pithier" bullet point questions rather than an essay on the full panoply, regards. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
See WP:TLDR :)
The same general section wouldn't be a bad thing, though the 'real deal'/a para with the most detail should probably go in the article about the series, and a summarized version of that should go in the individual books' articles. Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-reflexive metafiction

I was intending making Category:Self-reflexive novels a subcategory of Category:Metafictional works, does that sound right? Assuming it if then if an article appears in both categories am I OK to remove it Metafiction leaving it just in Self reflexive...GrahamHardy (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Both sound good. It's a pity we can't put the parent category, Category:Self-reflexive books, in there, since most of the diaries aren't fictional. But I think that the articles currently in the books category should really be in the novels one. Also, I wonder if there should be a more general Category:Metafictional novels as a parent category. There are different types of metafiction, even though "self-reflexive" usually comes to mind: e.g., frame stories, parallel stories, nouveau roman, and Finnegans Wake in its entirety :). Liveste (talkedits) 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)