Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16


Bibliographies taskforce

I am currently working a bibliography up to featured list (Geoff Ryman bibliography), and was wondering if such lists should be in this projects scope. Some FL bibliogrphies exist (List of works by William Gibson), but I'm putting short summaries in the Ryman one, and as much info as would normally go in novel infobox, so that the stub novels with no sources can be redirected there. As the novel stubs are in this project, i think this list should be too. This would be a good precedent for novels that will never gorw beyond stubs (giving the info the chance to be featured content). Should i add this project, and/or can we make a bibliogrphy taskforce?YobMod 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, add the project, but no to a bibliography TF - there would not be enough interest. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Genre link for "Historical novel" in info boxes

Great work project! Huge scope, but good stuff. I wish I had more time ....

Was just looking at the March (novel) entry, and I noticed that the genre listed in the Info box is "Historical novel." The words were linked separately, though, to the articles "History" and "Novel." It didn't seem to me that a link to a general article about history is particularly helpful in this context, especially since there is an article named Historical novel, so I changed the link.

I noticed that there is also an article for Historical fiction, which some might prefer to the article for Historical novel. I have no opinion --- indeed, one might argue that these are duplicate topics that should be merged --- but standard makers in the group might want to consider both articles as possible link targets.

If I have edited this article away from existing standards, I apologize.

Best, Rosmoran

Best to link to historical novel as you originally suggested (why someone would link each word separately is beyond me). I wouldn't recommend merging Historical novel and Historical fiction, because Historical film is another necessary article. Cheers. Liveste (talkedits) 01:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Hey, while I was patrolling with Huggle today, I came across the article Toad Rage. I undid the edits, however, the two users claimed that they were blanking the pages because the page violates copyright. Can anyone verify this? Deavenger (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems. A Google search came up with with copies of us. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was telling the editors that the article did not violate copyrights, but I have a feeling that they still might try to blank th epage. Deavenger (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Having had that covered; now it would appear the article is little more than a statement of existence and a plot summary. It would help to enhance the article with real world issues such as notability, reviews, reception, background etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I added a review from publishers weekly from the amazon site, and how this book spawned two sequels. needs some more work though. Deavenger (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Percy Jackson and the Olympians Taskforce

Okay me and User:Pmlinediter have talked it over and we think it would be best if we got a force together to work on Percy Jackson articles. So I'm pitching to you my fellow editors, the Percy Jackson TaskForce. I will be back on Wikipedia at 6:00 so you all have until then to voice any objections. Gears of War 2 11:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project? taskforce?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project or taskforce to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

War and Peace

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to voice this concern: if not then please tell me where I should go.

The state of this article is a disgrace. I know that everyone here is a volunteer like me, so I can't blame anyone in particular, but if there is to be a project for novels then shouldn't we expect it to be able to produce a decent article on what must be by any standard one of the ten most important novels ever written? There is one trivial reference in the whole article - the rest of it seems to consist totally of original research. It is 32 months since it was rated as "top importance" for this project, and very little seems to have been changed since then, and most of the talk page discussion seems to be about a silly urban myth about the meaning of the title or about childish spoiler warnings. Is there nobody in this project that wants to take on the really important topics?

Please don't give me the standard SOFIXIT reply - I am not the best person to do that job, but I would have thought that somebody (or bodies) who has signed up for this project would be able to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the article is quite as bad as the picture you paint. However I do take the general point, particularly about the lack in regard to referencing and particularly in-line citations. That aspect does perhaps exceed your description, negatively that is! As you point out this is all about volunteers and unpaid effort so maybe this "is" one area you could try and fix something. Search the net for suitable reference to some of the elements and put them in. If not at least go through the article and tag the major "needs" for referencing. That in itself would help. Also you could propose it for a collaboration, or peer review. Or if already up for either support a previous request. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Come on guys let's take this chaps critique and a challenge and rise to it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:30, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Robinson Crusoe

Robinson Crusoe could use review to remove or cite some instances of apparent WP:OR. -- (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see too much of concern - I have added a couple of citation requests. The influences section is most possible to show this problem. Was this where you meant. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

World War Z

World War Z is currently under review to become a Good Article. Any help you can provide to improve the article would be greatly appreciated. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

His Dark Materials task force

Seeing the number of articles related to Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, I was thinking of starting a new His Dark Materials task force (and not jumping and starting it like we did in PJTF with only two members). All those who are interested may support the foundation of this task force in this page. Whether the task force will be founded or not depends on whether we have sufficient users for work in the 20 odd articles related to the trilogy. Any comments/suggestions are welcome (please put them in my talk page. Pmlinediter  Talk 10:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheel of Time Task Force

I would like to organize a task force to coordinate the editing of articles relating to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series of novels. Are there any objections? Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any interest for it (i.e. are there five or so people who would join and help out)? We have enough dead task forces as it is... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes - by all means - but there does need to be the support and beyond the "go for it type" - those who will actively get stuck in and contribute. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a fair amount of interest and participation going on at the moment over at the Wheel of Time talk pages. I think if the task force got started, it could retain interest. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You might like to poll some of these contributors and see if there is interest. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is sufficient interest. Are there any objections to my proceeding? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

Is it ok to add articles to the Further Reading section that aren't written in English? I'm directing this question at the The Kindly Ones novel. If you check the French article, you'll see a huge further reading section (bibliographie). Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look it appears that most of that section is really a References section (renamed). In other words they are sources for the article. So if there are sources to be included then include them either as in-line citations or full bibliographic entries. However a list for further reading is ok but it should not overlap with the References entries and essential be additional or associated reading. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of the language - bear in mind that this is an English language resource and people will largely be English readers. However if there are highly notable sources in another language use it however sparingly and with suitable language related annotation (to indicate language written in!). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, none of the articles there are used as sources. It's indeed a Further Reading section. As for the language, ok, I'll only add the most notable ones.
My misunderstanding! It seems very strange to have such a large further reading section and no overall references to speak of! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
About a future References section, should I take all the reviews that are used as sources out of the Reviews section and add it as References, in order to avoid double entries? That seems strange to me, cause if most notable reviews are used as sources, then the Reviews section would only have the "2nd tier" reviews, but to a common reader it would look like they are the "main" reviews. Evenfiel (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Generally the Reviews section is for listing and discussion of the reviews of the work. If these reviews are used as citations to elements of the article they should be in-line cited, then if the review is a significant source for the article then it should be included in a references/bibliography section. This may mean some duplication however the reveiw entry should be "about" the review, the citation should be for the reference to it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


I've been trying to help out a bit by trying to get more novel-related images to Featured Picture - Mainly Sir Walter Scott, Tristram Shandy, Stevenson, and a couple others at the moment, because that's what I have to hand. Would you like me to try and report on what I'm doing, so that the images can be worked into articles a bit more? (I'm afraid Tristram Shandy is a little image-heavy for its development level...) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible expansion of Narnia task force

It seems to me from the history of the task force page that there has been no particular activity in the above group lately. I tend to think that this might be because of the comparatively narrow focus of the group. I myself couldn't see any reason not to have it expand a little to include Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet series as well. But, then, actually, why even stop there?
Right now, somehow, I am one of the coordinators of the Christianity WikiProject, and in that position have noticed that WikiProject Films has created a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Christian films task force. It seems to me, as a bit of an outsider to these matters, that if there is sufficient interest for creating a group on that topic, as there seems to be, there might be sufficient interest to create a similar one here, which could with luck get a bit more attention to the subject of Christian fiction, which is a rather large one. Does the possible expansion of the extant Narnia task force make any sense to the rest of you? I am leaving a message on the talk page of that group, as well as of the Christianity Project, with links here, and we may on that basis get some input from interested parties there. But I would think that the best place to really find out if there is any interest for such a group would be here. Thank you in advance for any responses you may make. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

New featured picture

From Maiwa's Revenge, part of H. Rider Haggard's Allan Quartermain series.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Just want a second opinion if Caidh revertings of my rewritting of the article Lanfear is correct? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Very difficult to tell when so much of the material is clearly Original Research from the books. You would have to know the books well to be able to comment in detail. Try talking directly to the other editor in the first instance. You are supposed to be able to relate and together show in the article the usual issues of notability, verifiability, and of course give your sources. Not particularly well done in either revision of the article. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Organization of final section of La Peau de chagrin

I wonder if folks inolved in the wikiproject would care to comment on this dispute, left over from the recent TFA craziness. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankenstein GAR notice

Frankenstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

crediting translators and making the basis of the article more transparent

Hi, I noticed that translation credits are dealt with inconsistently in the project's articles. For example, while the article on the English translation of Italo Calvino's novel "Il sentiero dei nidi di ragno" (The Path to the Nests of Spiders) credits the translator in a box on the right, this is not the case with articles on other translations of Calvino's novels, for example, "If on a winter's night a traveller."

Many of Calvino's novels have been translated into English by William Weaver but by no means all of them. For one thing, this is a question of translators' recognition. For another, if the author of a wikipedia article discusses a novel with regard to its style, tone, atmosphere etc. and bases his review on a translation, then he is analysing and describing the text of the translator, not Calvino's. Not referring explicitly to the translated text is misguiding; it sounds as if the article is based on the original Italian text when the main source of the article is not being made transparent. In many cases, I venture, the reviewer of the English text is in no position to judge the original text.

My suggestion is to deal with this issue centrally, i.e by adding translation credits, that is, a clear naming of an article's basis to the project guidelines. It would be far too much work to go to each article seperately and edit the translator in, and in many cases only the article's author knows which translation of the original he read and then wrote about. This probably applies to similar English language wikipedia projects on poetry, film, non-fiction and other genres.

Let me know what you think, Cheers Handlore (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Oppel Task Force

Hello. :P I'm new to WikiProject Novels, and was introduced to it mainly through editing Starclimber. Since it sounded like something off the back cover, I wanted to make it better but realized that no one else but me (excluding bot work) appeared to be working on it as of mid-April 2009. I also checked up on some of Oppel's other books, which were all pretty much Start-Class. So, my question is: Should we create a Kenneth Oppel Task Force? If it has been suggested before, what was used to refute the creation of one? If we do create one, it would support the Silverwing and Matt Cruse series, the character pages for the Silverwing and Matt Cruse series, and Kenneth Oppel. Clem (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Such Task Forces need sufficient support to allow them to work so drum up some support amongst other editors, perhaps here and we'll see if such a thing is viable. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I had not heard of Oppel before this and I think that this would be great to promote his work and open up a new experience for readers looking for something to read. Gloryify (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds right up my alley. I'd be willing to jump on board if a task force is created. Sabiona (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since now it seems like we have a bit of support I should mention this page I created about a month ago. It's a bit empty at the moment but if we can get enough supporters it should work out. Clem (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration

This months collaboration will be The Tin Drum. I made an executive decision choosing it. It occurred mainly because the Project seemed to be failing a bit, so with the help of The Ed17 there will be a new newsletter out shortly, as there has been little to no voting in the collaboration section of the Project, we choose an article which was of a low class, and needed improving, and one which had previously been nominated. Alan16 (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Erast Fandorin

I am conducting a reassessment as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found come concerns which need addressing if this article is to keep its GA status, which may be found at Talk:Erast Fandorin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Live and Let Die (novel)

I am conducting a review of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. There are several concerns which have been left at Talk:Live_and_Let_Die_(novel)/GA1, which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)

I am conducting a review of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have delisted the article. There are several concerns which have been left at Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA1, which need to be addressed if the article is to regain GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ramona

I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process and have de-listed it as there are a number of issues which need attention. Details may be found at Talk:Ramona/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have started editing, but I need someone who has actually read the book to finish up. Comments at the novel talk page. Norwaystudent (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator Election

Voting has now opened. There are three candidates. Add support to the candidate of your choice. Alan16 (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

His Dark Materials Task Force

This newly created TF is dead. All interested persons are encouraged to work on it. Pmlineditor 13:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem of Task forces / project with little initial support or impetus. I suggest a bit of advertising might help here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Warriors (novel series)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books
There is a large number of articles in the Warriors (novel series) series of books which have no reliable sources. Just click on each of the linked titles in the template at the bottom of the novel series article, and you can see that every one of those books relies entirely on self-published sources or interviews with the author(s). What should be done about this? Merge everything together into one article that has sources? Start removing unsourced information, leaving nothing but stubs? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What should happen is interested editors provide better sources. Come on guys step up to the mark. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some targets for the next year

The WikiProject coordinator elections are halfway and I would like to set few targets for us for the upcoming year. We currently have 22223 articles of which 70% or 15898 are stubs. A realistic target would be reducing this to 10000 via expansion or deletion (where applicable). We have only 26 FAs which I would like to see standing and 35 by next year and the FL at 10. I would also take this opportunity to usher users to make List of Percy Jackson and the Olympians characters a Featured List. I would like to see 75 GAs and 1000 B class articles. We should also look to create a list such as "Articles in focus" which all the members will be ushered to edit for the month they are in focus. Also, I look forward to several more members and 2-3 more TFs. Regards, Pmlineditor 14:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC).

Good idea, it has been said "if you don't aim at anything, you are sure to hit your target". I am unsure that "1000 B class articles" is do-able. Needs to be something that is atleast conceptually possible and that I see as one step too far. Go basis though, we do need to rack up the activity level from everyone. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not? We need only 58 more articles in 52 weeks. If we work hard, it should be doable. :) Pmlineditor 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The "Articles in focus" sounds a lot like a "Collaboration of the Week/Month" or Wikipedia:Spotlight. I don't think either of those are good mechanisms for this project at this time because they are both centralized efforts depedendant upon a critical mass which this project currently doesn't have. Wikipedians are very much decentralized, working on random items as it suits them. Even if you were continually successful in herding the cats each week/month to work on one article at a time, you would only get an additional B-class article every week/month - an enormous effort for little gain and not much satisfaction. And don't worry about stubs - it is a perpetually expanding category with several articles added each day (and publishers are not about to stop publishing novels any time soon). --maclean 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


So non-fiction don't belong under this project - fine, but where do they belong, then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume as you are posting here that you mean some form of non-fiction book, or literature. So I would got to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books or Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature and see if they have the scope to cover it. Otherwise you need to think about the medium of the non-ficiton. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Erikson's Gardens of the Moon

Today I've copy edited and cleaned up Steven Erikson and have added this section to the Gardens of the Moon article. In my view the rest of the plot summary is overdone, and needs to be edited down considerably. Is it a problem if I hack away at this article? Input welcome. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean - by all means go ahead. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've found as many sources as possible, added them, and rewritten a bit. The bulk of the article is not sourced and a rehash of the plot. I don't want to step on toes of other editors, but I'd like to delete any text not sourced. Does your comment above support deletions of all unsourced text? Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I Love You, Beth Cooper

Recently started I Love You, Beth Cooper (which was about the movie (!) before I moved that page), and could use some help if anyone has read it. Thanks. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


FYI, a bunch of novel cover images have recently been nominated at WP:FFD for deletion. (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

audio books?

Is there a policy wrt mentioning the existence and readers of audiobook versions of novels? Mcnattyp (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Readers of audio books - there's and interesting concept surely they are "listeners to audiobooks". No no prolice although they are included in Publication histories sometimes. What do you think / propose. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think perhaps (just ignore me if this is a ridiculously outlandish suggestion) they should be treated like how soundtracks are for films, if you know what I mean. No. Scratch that. Well, not exactly. Just sort of merged with the rest of the article. Or maybe a separate section for audiobooks, with a very small infobox with reader, publication date, publisher. Or that sort of stuff could be added to the normal novel/book infobox. Separate parameters with "Audiobook reader". Publication dates etc. could just be set out like...uh, here's an example;

October 13, 2009 (US)
October 14, 2009 (UK)
October 14, 2009 (CDN)
October 23, 2009 (US)
October 45, 2009 (UK & CDN)

Or something like that. Anybody know what I'm on about? Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an audiobooks project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Audiobooks, and it might be useful to contact them, although I don't think much has ever happened over there. My own opinion, such as it is, would be that if the "text" read of the audiobook is an abridgement or dramatization, and the audiobook has received enough coverage to qualify as notable in its own right, that we would probably benefit from having a separate section in the main article talking about the performers, type of text (abridged, full, "dramatized"), etc., and some material if any can be reliably sourced about the recording and critical response. This would of course be for books which are adaptations of novels. For the other types of adaptations, I would probably think the same rules might apply. For audiobooks that are effectively "originals", like the material from The Teaching Company, I would probably treat them as entirely separate articles, probably following more or less the "template" of the novels project or books project, depending on whether it is fiction or not. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Oregon Files

I was looking through the pages about the books in the Oregon Files and realized that all 6 are Stub-Class. I was just wondering if anyone was up to helping expand and improve them as I have very limited time and would love the books to be presented well. Seeing as I'm fairly new I would really love if some other more experienced editors could get involved and through some ideas around. Gloryify (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, set to work on one and let me know and I do what I can. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
They're good books. I'll help where I can. Alan16 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll also be pleased to help. Pmlineditor 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been doing a lot of work on the pages The Oregon Files, and Golden Buddha on my talk page and I was wondering if anyone could check/improve my work. I was also wondering if listing China as an antagonist in Golden Buddha was okay or if it was too racily discriminative and if I should change it to focus on the characters and time of the novel. Thanks for your anticipated help and support Gloryify (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC).


Due to a lack of interest in the Collaboration page I had to choose the months collaboration once again. Therefore I choose The Oregon Files because four editors have expressed interest in it here. Alan16 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


Is there a place to note active AfDs related to the Project, or are we assuming that interested parties will check the listings? I was just looking for some participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Little Liars (novel). Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed novel articles would be the place. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

minor problem with 2000 novel stubs?

Not sure if this is the right place for this question, but I noticed that articles that are stubbed with 2000s novel (see [1]) have an extra bracket and pipe after the stub.

If I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.

Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Just added Relentless (novel) (the bestselling thriller in the UK in 2007) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed novel articles; one other point; I added The Gift of Rain and The Collector Collector to this some time ago - who decides whther they've been resolved? The latest addition is more urgent as its deletion has actually been proposed, so please help, Thanks ! GrahamHardy (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Novels-related deletion discussions get sorted into Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature if anyone is interested. Currently in that list is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Business of Dying(Novel) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation, Texas (book) --maclean 19:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Steven Erikson

Hi. On the talk:Steven Erikson page, there is discussion taking place on the use of YouTube videos from a Q & A that Erikson was involved in. Input would be great, thanks. Alan16 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

New York Times notability?

Anyone know a good reference for New York Times Notable Book and Alice Walker’s Favorite Book of the Year? Kim Chernin makes these claims on her site and have no reason to doubt the truth of them, but how could one check? The NYT site is paid and I can't afford a subscription, before anyone suggests that. --John (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Kim Chernin

  • The NYT site should be free, but it is very difficult to navigate their best-seller list. Their "Notable Book" section is for the books that did not sell well-enough to make the list but are still worthy of mention.--maclean 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Would it be archived? If not, does someone maintain an archive? How about even the best-sellers themselves? This was interesting but not quite what I was after... And this might have the info in there somewhere. I've emailed the user to see if they will share their master data. --John (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Google News Archive gives a large number of searchers that can be used to add to the article. Reviews are always relevant.
Among them is [2], which documents New and Noteworthy for Flame Bearers. In my experience, GNArchive is the best way to navigate their site.
I cannot find the Alice Walker citation. There are however numerous quotes of Walker's praise of various books of Chernin. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thank you so much. If you would be able to add anything to the article (preferably to provide better sources for the commented out bits which came from her own site, or else amend them), I would be very grateful. --John (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

TV apps

Also, can anyone verify her claim to have been on the television shows The Phil Donahue Show, Good Morning America and The Today Show? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


The Sound and the Fury has been selected by popular vote to be this months collaboration. Please work to improve it to featured article status. Alan16 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

On the Great American Novel

Would an English major please be kind enough to look at these diffs?
--NBahn (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The De Lillo fits the criteria I'd say. I've read both authors, and the Milt Gross thing is rubbish as as far as I'm aware, he is only a comic writer, and hasn't written a novel to speak off. Alan16 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Friday Unreferenced Sections

Friday is a science-fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein. In my talk section, I cite 9 of the 16 sections in the article for No Sources, Original Synthesis and In-universe Perspective. The editor of those sections' response is that the novel itself should be a valid source.

I would like to start a small, very informal quasi-RfC on my contention that those 9 sections should be removed. Specificaly:

Thank you in advance for the time you spend responding. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot to read, so this reply is only an initial point. To do with the idea that the novel itself should be a valid source - the novel can only be a source for things explicitly stated (e.g. A is X). Anything interpretation of the novel is, IMO, WP:OR. As I said, that is just an initial comment, I'll read the full debate and get back to you. Alan16 (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be sources for Heinlein's Friday as it's not recent. I agree with RoyGoldsmith's assessment, and I'd try to rewrite, bringing the article from in-universe to real world using sources. If that's not possible, then delete the extraneous text, in my view. Like Alan16's, that's only an initial response, will add more if necessary, or add to the talk page. Also will look for sources for Friday, time permitting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? I have added a summary of my arguments at the bottom of Friday's talk page. Truthkeeper, I have not found other significant sources on the web (except for possibly this; does it pass the reliable sources test?). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could go ahead and start rewriting. I've found that too many articles about novels are pure in universe plot summaries that cannot be verified with sources. The Heinlein Concordance is good and has a nice little plot summary, so that's certainly usable. Also, I like the manner in which Starship Troopers has been written -- in my view that would be the example to use for Friday. I do apologize, I actually completely forgot about this and forgot to watch the article page. I'll have a closer look -- but my inclination is to say delete and turn into a real world perspective (or perhaps write the real world perspective first and then replace.) Hope that helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem with rewriting is that I can't conveniently find the sources on Friday I'd need, unless I want to go in to the research library on 42nd St in Manhattan. Even they may not have much on Friday and I can't afford to take a trip to Santa Cruz (where the Heinlein archives are stored). I don't think there is much written on the real-world perspective of Friday. Certainly not what Wikipedia would call reliable sources.
In my opinion, you need three sources on a specific topic (like Heinlein's theme of abandonment as expressed in Friday or the relationship between Friday and other Heinlein novels), each one about the size of a master's thesis (say a minimum of 20 pages, with extensive endnotes), in order to paraphrase and summarize their contents. In certain, rare cases, you can get away with only two sources, if they are sufficiently authoritative and more-or-less agree with each other. Otherwise you're just summarizing one person's opinion. (For example, I wouldn't feel right, sumarizing the already-summarized Heinlein Concordance as a single source. I wouldn't remove content that cited the Heinlein Concordance; I just wouldn't use such material myself.)
You can use the text of the novel to summarize the plot (and maybe the characters) but that's all. Anything beyond a summary that would make it into a good Cliff's Notes is inappropriate. Your article on Alex Delaware was fine: you summarized each of the 23 novels in which he was a chararater in in a few sentences. But Friday only exists in one novel.
Maybe I'm too anal. (I spent the better part of 1985 performing cite checks on a real, paper encyclopedia of computer science, sold for real money. Maybe I take that year too seriously for Wikipedia.) But can you see any realistic way that the nine sections can be transformed into real world perspective? (Other than ignoring them. In your opinion, does the wiki-consensus kind of recommend that I do ignore them, under the theory of what the hell, we're only Wikipedia?) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Paradise Regained printed in Dublin

I have come across a copy of this book printed in Dublin in the 1750s and I can't seem to find any information on it, so if anyone does know please inform me.

You must be referring to Paradise Regained by John Milton. Are you looking for general information on the book or information on that specific Dublin printing of the book? --maclean (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Is there be any interest in running a scaled-down version of Wikipedia:WikiCup within the novels wikiproject? maclean (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested. Alan16 (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Me too. I have already got 2 FLs to write and a GA, so its ok with me. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 15:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas on how to make the competition more Wikiproject-focused? My thoughts are that there should be credit for resolving maintenance tag issues, like 3 points wikifying a {{wikify}}-tagged WPNovel article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Cleanup listing#Wikify for the list) or 5 points for resolving a {{copyedit}} tag. Providing points for total mainspace edits may be impractical (sorting edits by WPNovel articles and non-WPNovel articles would be tedious and time-consuming). I would also like to see points given for participation in Peer Review --maclean (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Christ Stopped at Eboli

Christ Stopped at Eboli is not a novel. I am moving it to WikiProject:Literature. Bruxism (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the correct move, unless it would be better served at WP:BOOKS. Thanks, —Ed (TalkContribs) 22:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


This article is about a fictional piece of technology. I created an AfD to discuss its notability. Opinions are welcome. Spiderone 15:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR Looming - Oroonoko Needing Citations

Oroonoko is currently a featured article under the project, however it contains massive amounts of unsourced content that needs addressing or it could end up at FAR and be delisted. I tagged the article for needing more citations to support the claims, and left a note on the talk page as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Oroonoko for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. PmlineditorTalk 08:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. RFC: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Referral For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Last of the Masters" peer review

I'd like to remind the members of this Project that "The Last of the Masters", a short story by Philip K. Dick, is currently undergoing a peer review. I would very much like to build upon the article quality for a future nomination to FA status, and would appreciate any comments and suggestions to that end. I have been patiently awaiting comment for several weeks, and am now pressing the point as I am trying to organize my editing priorities for the near future. Thank you. --Cast (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've left a couple comments. Nice article! Cheers, —Ed (TalkContribs) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Our peer review section currently has eleven articles waiting for reviews. Can anyone help out? Thanks, —Ed (TalkContribs) 22:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try and review 1. PmlineditorTalk 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

There is a currently a move discussion relating to As I Lay Dying (novel). The question is, should Faulkner's As I Lay Dying be considered to primary topic of that name and moved to As I Lay Dying? If interested, please weigh in at Talk:As I Lay Dying (novel).--Cúchullain t/c 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Public domain books

Since there are many works in the public domain (20,000+ I believe), I was wondering if it's against Wikipedia policy or not to link to where you can freely download an ebook of the article subject. I haven't seen any ebook files in Commons, so I don't know if that's due to technical limitations or if the file itself, as someone had to put it together, isn't actually freely licensed outside of personal use. It seems natural to me to direct a reader to the source on which the article is based, but I don't know if this is outside Wikipedia's scope. I was thinking of a place like Project Gutenberg, for instance. I know it's pretty POV, but I'd like to encourage people to read the book if they haven't already. — Bility (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Related Bot Request for Approval

As this is a relevant WikiProject to the bot's proposed task (involving {{Infobox book}}, the Dewey Decimal Classification, and Library of Congress Classification) and so those interested may comment: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 2 --Cybercobra (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Nathaniel Hawthorne has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary length at The Lost Symbol

Debate about the length of the plot section in an article is on-going at Talk:The Lost Symbol#Length of plot section. Any interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 15:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair (novel) needs cites

Vanity Fair (novel) is considered a classic work. Our article is 31k / 5+ pages, but although it lists two references, does not have cites.
Does anybody have sources and interest in this subject? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warning discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

If any one is interested, I have suggested that the article "Inkworld trilogy" be moved to "Inkheart trilogy"; please add your comments to Talk:Inkworld trilogy. Thank you, Darth Newdar talk 21:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blue Is for Nightmares series merge

This series has individual articles for each of its five books, all of them stubs. It might be a good first step towards expanding if they were all merged and the page renamed Blue Is For Nightmares (series). I've started discussion for anyone who'd like to participate. --Lexid523 (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Human Beings

Hi folks, strolling around Wikipedia I came across this article on a novel by Colin Sargent, which was full of copyright protected contents and POV. I removed all these issues, leaving the article to a mere introduction. Who can expand? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Lists of works"

This conversation about the MOS and "lists of works" articles might interest editors here. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


I've been having trouble finding reliable sources for reviews for an article I'm working on, would anyone be able to suggest good source(s) for these? Rehevkor 18:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You might try Locus. Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have an account for Kirkus Reviews

Anyone with a Kirkus Reviews account please look at the reviews placed in the External links section of The Faerie Wars Chronicles. Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


maclean (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fear Street

While Stub-sorting I'm finding a lot of tiny stubs for novels in this teen horror series, eg The Fire Game and Halloween Party (Fear Street) . I don't know whether they're notable enough to be anything more than redirects to the series page, but someone from the project might like to look and take a view. PamD (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More: I see that Lights Out (Fear Street) was speedied and then unspeedied on the basis that "decline speedy - others in this series exist", which of course is no valid reason! PamD (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic fiction task force

The Military History Wikiproject, has started a Work group Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force/Napoleonic fiction, I would like to expand this to a Novel's sponsored taskforce, does anyone have any objections or thoughts? SADADS (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment on my talk page. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Creating Military fiction task force

Per discussion on Kevinalewis's (Talk Page), I am starting a Military fiction task force, anyone interested should sign up. Any objections?SADADS (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Does A Death In The Family by James Agee qualify for listing in Great American Novel?

  • User:Person man345 obviously does not believe so and all I know about the novel is that Agee was awarded a Pulitzer posthumously.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • ....And that's about all I saw going for it too, so I took it off. Probably merits some discussion, though, if someone actually thought it should go on the list. At the risk of sounding dismissive, I'd like to hear some reasoning for its inclusion; my impression is that the list on that page should be somewhat selective, and not merely a long list of prize-winning novels. Person man345 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, so I googled "great american novel list" and was about to post a link to a book when my eye caught the first entry of the said book's listing: HORATIO ALGER. Ouch! But I'm still looking for a credible list.....<br. />--NBahn (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom Clancy franchise books

Several requested moves have shown up to rename several Tom Clancy franchise novels to a consistent pattern, see WP:RM for December 6th. (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

A list of a project's most viewed pages can be created, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Popular pages. If people at the Novels WikiProject are interested in creating such a list for the WikiProject a request can be made here --maclean (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I put in a request thought it would be useful, if we need to change anything use 2jbim8g as the code. SADADS (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-free file on project talk-page template

File:Twilight Apple.gif, which was used on {{NovelsWikiProject}} was listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 1. It seems very likely indeed that the image of the apple which was photoshopped to produce this was not free, so the result cannot be free either. The image will be deleted shortly. I imagine the project will want to replace this with something similar. If it is a photoshop again, please make sure any modified photograph is free so that we don't have this problem. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in the Warriors novel series

I would like to propose a split of List of characters in the Warriors novel series. I have suggested it on the talk page, but apparently, most members of Wikiproject Warriors have not been around for a while, so I have had no responses. I talked to an admin, who said I should seek consensus for a split here. Unfortunately, I still am quite a newbie, so I am feeling a bit overwhlemed by all this complicated things that must be done, especially since no one at Wikiproject Warriors seems on hand to help me.

So, how exactly do I get "a consensus for a split"? I have example pages under my user page here:

List of ThunderClan cats (Warriors)

List of RiverClan cats (Warriors)

List of ShadowClan cats (Warriors)

List of WindClan cats (Warriors)

List of BloodClan and SkyClan cats (Warriors)

List of cats in the Tribe of Rushing Water and Ancient cats (Warriors)

List of Characters outside Clans (Warriors)

I have also been told that I will need to attribute this work to the contributors who actually helped create the content, but since I'm new, I don't know how exactly to do this. Is it possible to copy history over from the old page?

Brambleclawx (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is done and over with, and may, in fact, be archived. Brambleclawx 03:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Elwin Ransom article needs your help

I've just tagged our article Elwin Ransom (main character in C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength) with "Essay-like" and "unreferenced".
I think that an AfD/merge of this article might be justified.
Does anyone have any interest in improving this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Light novel covers


There is an increase of Light novel covers images and i'm asking if there is an existing category for those covers. If a such category doesn't exist should a category created for them then?

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why. The cover images are present, Only to illustrate the novel article as they are copyright "fair use" material so any other use is deprecated.! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
grrr my stupid Angrish :(
Let's reformulate the question: is a category similar to Category:Manga covers is warranted for Light novel covers. --KrebMarkt 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, everything should be categorized, if there is no category to categorize them, a category should be created. And categorizing fair-use images is done on Wikipedia already, since it's not a "use" (you can turn off gallery mode in categories), it's categorization. (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox sourcing?

What kind of sourcing is required for info on publisher, publication date, etc.? If not mentioned in the article, should it be sourced in the infobox? The info seems of the uncontroversial kind one almost wouldn't need to bother sourcing? Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The type of information covered by the infobox should generally be found elsewhere in the main article - the examples you mention in a "Publication details" section and sourced there. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Mark Scott

The writer Paul Scott was moved to the page Paul Mark Scott without discussion to turn Paul Scott into a disambiguation page. Furthermore the person moving the article did not then repair the links to the page basically leaving the new article an orphan. The other Paul Scotts do not appear to stack up anywhere near the notability to the author of The Raj Quartet, so I think it would be a fair call to move him back and create a Paul Scott (disambiguation) for the rest. Also Paul Scott is not commonly known as Paul Mark Scott, Paul Scott (author) would be a beater choice if he was to be moved. As I am not an admin and not part of this WikiProject I can not do so myself. Just hoped this Project would have the same view point as myself. Thanks in advance FruitMonkey (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite agree - people doing things without understanding the context! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian

Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11. (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RS reviews

A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#What makes a review site a reliable source? in which an editor, User:Dream Focus, has proposed that WP:RS be changed to state that if a review site receives a stated number of hits, it should be considered automatically reliable and usable for both a reliable source and establishing notability. As Novels is one of the main projects that uses reviews for its articles, it seemed relevant for notification. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What's it about?

I think these articles should all have a section explaining what the novels are about theme-wise before any section going into the plot.
Story themes could be categorized in Wikipedia, if they're not already. There are related themes all over in literature, and I feel an encyclopedia should help make those connections easy to make. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Where sourcable, thematic information of a novel goes after its plot. You can't discuss the themes of a novel are without first covering its plot. And without reliably sources, there should be no categorization nor attempts to connect any related themes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I get it; I know what you're saying. I'm always wanting to connect the dots for people, but that's not what Wikipedia is here for. Oh well. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Military fiction task force

Hello everyone! Some of you may remember my tenure as a coordinator here, and most of you won't, but as a member of this project and as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject, I come here with a proposal to turn NOVELs' new Military fiction task force into a jointly-run task force, as the scope of it clearly falls within both of our domains. If this is to be accepted, however, the category Category:Military fiction task force articles by quality would have to renamed Category:Military fiction articles by quality so that MILHIST's template doesn't go bonkers. Thoughts? —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. More volunteers from either end would be very useful.Sadads (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The idea seems like a beneficial one for the military fiction task force, so I personally think it is a good idea. Alan16 (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Why should the banner template go bonkers - surely the name is properly indicative of task force interest (being talk page base etc.) If the banner needs to account for the category it should quote the name of the category being used like any other such template. Please explain need. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was in error—to quote Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs), "... fixing their assessment categories to the standard Category:Military fiction articles by quality rather than their current Category:Military fiction task force articles by quality (which will conflict with the names our templates generate)." —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 03:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Novels project talk page overhaul

I'd like to propose overhauling this talk page to follow the same standards as other projects, to improve usability and appearance. Specifically:

  • Renamed it back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and drop the "General forums" bit - particular as these are not "forums" per se and because of the current name, starting a new topic is a pain in the butt because there is no "new section" tab Done
  • Clean up all of the archives and move to the standard naming conventions, and move to a standard auto archiver with index and search box, like most larger projects Done
  • General clean up of the top matter and side matter per these changes Done

Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't really care about the others, but I'm fully in favor of bullet one. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
OK for me. Pmlineditor  07:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It has been this way for some time in keeping with the suggested forum concept prevailing at the time. All I would ask IF we make this change we make is cleanly tidily and comprehensibly (i.e. renaming all the archives as well). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was my goal that if consensus agrees, this and all the archives would be moved/renamed, then add the search and index (which can be quite helpful fro the number of archives), and the redirect links left in place for any that have been linked to anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if my vote counts, since I'm not really an expert on any of this or terribly involved in the project, but I say that sounds good. Bullet 1 sounds like it would help everyone and bullet 3 sounds like it makes sense. Why not? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems like most folks agree, so I'm going to put in the move request so an admin can do the necessary hist merge to take care of point one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Done, please make sure I didn't move anything to the wrong spot please (ie the /GeneralForum archives :) —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 03:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The archive index should have gone to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive index but I fixed it :-) For the archive links, none of those should have needed moving, as they were already all moved to the appropriate talk page archives (i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 2, etc)? Most of those old archive links can probably be deleted, though, as none of the ones I checked had any links to them from anywhere except some old user sandboxes for the old layout. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Meh, there's no need. I'm too lazy to go through and delete them all, and redirects can't hurt anything :) —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 03:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Style Guide and Reception

I've proposed a rewording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Reception at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Propose Reword of Reception. Views/commentary would be appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me - at first reading. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell bibliography

If anyone has the time, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/George Orwell bibliography/archive1 needs reviews. All input is appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've commented. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Task force

I'm planning on starting a CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force at WP:CHL under the heading Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force and putting a redirect here under a similar name. Is that ok with you guys? Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Characters in ...

1 Plot summary
2 Characters in "The Book The Bloomin' Article Is About"
3 Literary significance and reception
4 References and allusions

Some/many/most novel pages have a heading list as above.
Why the utterly absurd recapitulation of the book title beside Characters?
Where else would the characters be from? The Bible? Lemony Snicket?
How about a retrofit that nukes that extraneous "in ..." nonsense?

Perplexed, Varlaam (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Those articles should probably be updated to reflect the current MoS, which does remove the ridiculous, and main MoS violating, section title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Your orders, sir, are "Show no quarter"?
Varlaam (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much. Having "Characters in article title goes against the basic MoS anyway, which is why the style guides were changed :-P Article titles shouldn't really be repeated in the article itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Can just change to "Charachters", its the standard. Sadads (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There shall be a reckoning.
It shall not be pretty.
Varlaam (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Is it normal to involve a long foreign language edition list in book articles, such as seen here? It seems unnecessary to me, and the sentence at the top mentioning Wikipedia within the project seems strange also. I browsed through some of the books on the FA list and didn't see anything similar. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A single sentence indicating that it was released in multiple languages is sufficient. Listing them all is excessive and trivia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I will bring it up on the talk pages at Deception Point, Angels and Demons, and Digital Fortress. Beach drifter (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about naming conventions

Do specific naming conventions exist for articles about authors and their works? I'm working on Ernest Hemingway and think it would be useful to split out the Notable works section. However, I'd like some guidance as far as naming the new article. For instance Notable works by Ernest Hemingway seems as though it might be hard to find in a search. Ernest Hemingway (notable works) would be easier to search for, in my view. As I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that standardized naming conventions could be applied to other authors as well. For instance aMark Twain (Notable works) page could be added -- or would it be Notable works by Mark Twain? Anyway, thoughts on this are appreciated, and if it's a topic to be discussed elsewhere, please let me know. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, shouldn't it be bibliography of Ernest Hemingway, etc.? —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 19:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This. "Notable works" is not an appropriate title as it implies some non-neutral selection. IF a split is needed, it should either be something like Bibliography of Ernest Hemingway or List of works by Ernest Hemingway.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I seem to be overthinking this. Bibliography of Ernest Hemingway already exists, but it's a list of titles only. Does List of works by Ernest Hemingway have to be in list format? If not, that might work. I agree with Collectonian that "Notable works" implies selection based on what? What I propose is an article with thumbnail descriptions of each work to allow a reader a quick glance of all his works on one page, rather than having to find each different aricles about each specific work. Furthermore, such an arrangement could be applied to other authors. But having a standardized naming convention would be helpful. If I'm off base let me know, and I'll simply delete that entire section from the main article altogether. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
For Hemingway, his Bibliography already exists, so it just needs some clean up. General consensus is that tehy should not have plot summaries or the like, just a list of titles, with publication years, publisher, etc. See WP:MOS-BIBLIO for how such lists should be formatted. The "List of..." article title was just an alternate sugggestion, for those authors that don't have one but for which a split may be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Collectonian. If I understand correctly, some of information, i.e. publication info and so forth, can be added to the existing Bibliography article, and the rest perhaps moved to their respective pages? Does that make sense? Feel free to contact me on my userpage it necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the preferred naming convention for a novel that exists prior to a film adapted from that novel? Specifically, an editor decided to move article about Walter Kirn's novel Up in the Air from Up in the Air to Up in the Air (book) with the thought of moving Up in the Air (film) to Up in the Air. Wouldn't Up in the Air (novel) be preferrable to Up in the Air (book) when there is ambiguity? --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if it precedes a movie it should be without the disambiguating (book) or (novel), see Master and Commander and Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World. Even though the first is not as popular as the second, the first still receives the simpler title, because it precedes and was adequately important without the movie. However, (novel) is preferable in general, Sadads (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
If the book was first, it is fine to have it without the disambiguation. If it is disambiguated, it should be novel in this case. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I think disambiguation policy emphasizes giving consideration to the reader and the searcher, not the original artwork or artist. To that end, consensus supports using the most commonly used and easily understood name, even if it not the most precise, politically correct, or contemporary phrasing. To me, that suggests that the book should have (book) and the movie should have (movie), and any issues of derivation can be explained on the page itself. If my reading is correct, disambiguations are not for getting any point across, but just for helping users find the page they're looking for and know exactly what it is and is not when they do. (blame random article for my intrusion). (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


I believe Click (novel) is ready to be promoted to a Start. It has multiple citations and helpful information.

Hcps-hoytca (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Made response on Talk:Click (novel), Sadads (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

19th century task force active or dead?

Is this task force still active. If not, I would be interested in helping to re-activate, galvanise an effort regarding 19th century literature/novels. Currently, I am working on upgrading the article on She to GA status, and then hope to do the same for some of Ann Radcliffe's works (esp The Romance of the Forest) - I know Radcliffe isn't strictly speaking 19th century, but close enough! :)

Anyone interested in giving this (dead?) body a poke? ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 05:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Novels to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Click (novel)

I think that Click (novel) is ready to be promoted to Start. I have now correctly formatted it.

Hcps-hoytca (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is still very much a stub, and needs to be expanded (using reliable sources) before it can be considered Start-class. FYI, you should request future reassessments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment, not here. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Windup Girl

Hi guys, I'm a wiki novice, but i adore the "The Windup Girl",(a stub), therefore i made my first serious attempt at wiki editing. I managed to do the synopsis, but i'm totally at sea with editing features. Please help me with adding info boxes, cleaning up the synopsis and stuff. And if you want a legal free copy of the novel you can mail the publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talkcontribs) 13:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I will walk him through some of this stuff. Sadads (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing templates

I am new to Wikipedia editing and am wondering how to edit an author template. The template for Ted Dekker is no longer current, but when I click on the "e" in the top-left corner, it says simply "#REDIRECT Template:Ted Dekker." How can I actually edit the content of the template to make it up-to-date?

Jahchild101 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally that would be the correct procedure. In this case, someone moved the template to a new name, but didn't update its code to reflect that. I've just fixed that, so you should now be able to click the E and edit it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion which needs more eyes

Please come participate in the move discussion at Talk:List of films based on war books — peace#Requested move. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Focus: Literary Movements?

I'm a little flustered, looking at some of the short story summaries. Just as an example, I took a look at "Signs & Symbols", by Nabokov. The article summarizes the story, and leaves it at that. Which is a gross failure to place the story in context. Signs & Symbols is a parody of structuralism, and as such, summarizing the story is almost tantamount to providing misinformation. I would like to pursue the idea placing literary works inside the larger context of the literary movements. I find context as important as content, in many cases. I don't know how to approach this kind of concern, and I know that this would take a very serious level of dedication and scholarship to do properly, but I'd definitely like to get involved. (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not a member of this project, but I'd like to respond. There's no agreement that I know of on what "Signs and Symbols" is about (and the idea that it's a parody of structuralism is new to me, not that that proves anything). There is critical literature on it, and I think that article really needs a balanced and well-sourced look at that literature, made with that very serious level of dedication and scholarship you're talking about. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Expanding comments on the scholarship is exactly what should be done. However, be careful and makes sure that you don't drift into Original Research. Sadads (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The first step, in my opinion, would be to find the sources that discuss "Signs and Symbols". Perhaps you could list them on the talk page and summarize their main arguments and we could work from there? Drop me a line on my userpage if you would like more help. I've written articles on a lot of strange genres, so I might be able to provide more specific help once I see the kind of material that is available. Awadewit (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've raided some on-line sources and added an extensive bibliography to the talk page, but I've summarized only the few of the articles that I've read. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

new article

Hi, I'm pretty and I just made my first article about Paul Bowles short story collection, The Delicate Prey and Other Stories

I'd appreciate it if someone can look it over and fix any mistakes/improve it and maybe rate it

thanksIce Truck Killer (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend starting by establishing why it is notable, using reliable sources, per WP:BK. For what sections are appropriate, see WP:MOS-NOVELS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Against Plot Sections

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_-_stricter_guidelines_against_plots_in_articles -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


I have been gradually getting the article on She (by Rider Haggard) up to scratch. Now included are sections on background information, publication, revisions, genre (fantasy, adventure, Imperial Gothic), style, reception, and themes (Imperialism, Race and evolution done, the subsection on "female authority and sexuality" still to complete). After this I intend a section on modern interpretation, with 2 subsections "feminist" and "post-colonialism". The synopsis has also been largely written. With all that done, it will just leave a section on legacy, to include the existing "popular culture" section which as it stands is just basically a list of trivia, as well as adaptations. I hope to eventually get this article up to FA, so woudl appreciate any comments or suggestions. I will leave the lead for last, so as to know exactly what to summarise. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 19:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Open Boat" is at Peer Review

Hello, fellow members. Can you believe that, according to the task force page, there is only one Featured Article dedicated to a short story? I plan on making it two by nominating an article I've been working on, Stephen Crane's "The Open Boat" (1897), to FAC in the near future. The article is currently listed for a PR and I would welcome constructive comments/suggestions for improvement at the page, located here: Wikipedia:Peer review/The Open Boat/archive1. María (habla conmigo) 14:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Archive 15/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Archive 15/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)UTC)

Referencing Release Dates Spam?

An editor has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Multiple use of commercial links regarding whether the use of multiple commercial links, such as official sites and, to reference air dates, publication dates, and release dates for media works is "spam". Said discussion stems from a second editor claiming it was and stripping all such references out of several FA and FL articles including episode and chapter lists, and attacking another editor as a "spammer" for referencing several more lists in a similar fashion. Additional views would be useful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Infoboxes, Want thoughts

Hey all, I recently got into a conversation with several other editors about the advisability of infoboxes, see Talk:True_at_First_Light#Comments_from_Awadewit. However, it seems that the language in the Style guide is very lax, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Infobox. Are my opinions about the importance of including an infobox, especially on articles about specific novels, what I should be advising? Should Novels style guide be a little more stringent about the language in the style guide, to promote consistency, etc.? I think we ought to, to some degree, clean up that section, but I want community thoughts before I do. Sadads (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I do think the wording should be tightened up, more in line with what other larger projects are doing, and the MoS as a whole cleaned up a bit. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Infobox, for example, and the MoS as a whole really is written in a way that takes it for granted that an article will have an infobox. I really can't think of any valid argument for not having them on a novel article. I did some work on it a few months ago to bring it more inline with actual practices, but I think it really could use a good rewrite and reorganization to make it more professional in appearance and more consistent with other media works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the guidelines can be rewritten simply because Wikipedia has changed so much over the past few years, but Awadewit is 100% correct on this issue: infoboxes are not mandatory anywhere, on any subject, on Wikipedia. For us to demand their usage is silly, especially seeing as how numerous novel articles have been promoted to GA and FA without them. Consistency may be important to some, but seeing as how these articles can be as different as the novels they're based on, well, what's the point? Their use is entirely subjective, and something that depends upon the particular editor(s). María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think one thing to keep in mind, though, is many of those that were promoted were done so before the current guidelines. The current FAC guidelines, at least, do strongly encourage the use of infoboxes for consistency and because they do provide a nice, quick highlight of the article. From other media guidelines, FAC criteria, remarks in peer review, etc the consensus does seem to strongly favor the use of infoboxes, rather than it being purely subjective upon any specific editor working on a single article. And rarely does it harm an article to have an infobox, if there is an appropriate infobox for it. As far as I am aware, the novel's MoS is the only media format MoS that even hints that it is optional and subjective.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Your experiences at FAC may have been different than my own; as of now only one out of eight of my FAs have an infobox, and I prefer it that way. Several times one particular editor has commented (note: not oppose) at the FAC because of the lack of infobox, but each and every time all I had to do was say "infoboxes are not required" -- and it's true. The word "infobox" doesn't even appear at WP:WIAFA, or WP:WIAGA for that matter. There are numerous editors, no matter what subject they tend to concentrate on, who absolutely despise infoboxes. I am not really one of them, but I fail to see how a clunky box (which, btw, is enough for me to "harm" an article), listing 90% of the information that is typically available in the first several paragraphs of an article, should be pushed upon those who would like the option to use it or not. That something is "strongly encouraged" is quite different from it being mandatory, and we shouldn't force its use. I also don't want to be the user to go through the past novel-FAs and GAs without infoboxes and run the risk of pissing off people. I'm not saying that's what is being discussed here, but if the guidelines were changed to specifically say that infoboxes are required, that's where we are headed. No, sir, I don't like it. María (habla conmigo) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't had a problem with infoboxes at FAC and the vast majority of the 30+ FAs I have worked on do not have infoboxes. Maria is right - there is no requirement at FA or GA for infoboxes. It is not listed in their guidelines anywhere. Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
See, every time I hear people laugh at infoboxes because of the consistency argument, I think "Then what is the point of doing reviews and creating a style guide?" I think infoboxes are important 1. because they provide links to vital information away from the text that way someone browsing can go directly to that information instead of sifting through the article and 2. because they provide each user with a familiarity with the page. The usability objection is currently being nulled by the work of the initiative (see this blogpost). I see this as the only really logical objection. I don't understand why it would be objectional to repeat vital information. It is the same reason that you include charts to explain groups of numbers or maps to explain locations even though you probably explain it in words. Visually, a little bit of extra information and organization at the beginning gives a little more professional umph! Sadads (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Mandating infoboxes for novels is, in my opinion, a poor choice. They work very well for chemical elements, which have clearcut categories that need to be described for each element, but novels do not. Furthermore, creating categories like "Genre" often confusing the issue more than clarifies it. For example, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (which is a good example of how ridiculous an infobox can look) has been described as a whole host of genres, all of which are described in the article, but it has never been described as all of those genres together. Putting a single genre in the box would privilege one critic over another and putting them all in would be non-sensical. This is the kind of the problem that arises when infoboxes are applied to things that cannot be easily categorized. Other novels have complicated publishing histories that are completed eliminated by the box's structure. This kind of simplification does not help our readers - it only gives them a false sense of certainty. We should be providing the most accurate information, not the simplest information. Awadewit (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Your example proves nothing. For genre, the article clearly calls it Alternate history and the plot summary clearly places it within this genre. The infobox looks silly because no one actually put any work into filling it out. That is poor authorship not poor infobox. Sadads (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You obviously did not read the article. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is It has been described as a fantasy novel, an alternative history, and a historical novel. Also, the "Genre" section mentions even more genres than that and quotes sources in support of them. Please don't add misleading information to articles that you have not read, as you did here. Please look a little deeper in the complexity of the issue, as I was trying to explain above. Awadewit (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But the lead says clearly that the book is "An alternative history set in 19th-century England around the time of the Napoleonic Wars," and later discusses the stylistic techniques which put the book in this genre. The prominent genre is the important genre. It is descriptive enough for an infobox which gives "vital facts". Think of it like a medical fact sheet. It expedites the work of the doctor if he knows if an individual is male or female biologically (or if they have taken biological steps to change that), even if the individual identifies with the other gender or has unconventional sexual orientation. If the doctor wants to get to know the patient, then they can talk to them and investigate their other features and maybe that will have an effect on the diagnosis, but most of the time it wont. And like I mention on your talk page, did not mean to be rude but was being bold. Sadads (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, you are welcome to read the entire article and all of the sources (I already have). The "fact" is that the sources do not agree on a primary genre and by placing a single genre in the infobox, we are misrepresenting what has been written on the book. Awadewit (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
In addition to everything Awadewit has stated, I noticed on the talk page linked at the top of this section that ISBN/OCLC info is reason enough to use an infobox for novel-related articles. FYI, ISBNs only came into effect in the late sixties, so obviously the hundreds of millions of books published previously do not have an ISBN to list, and not even every book published today are assigned the identifier; if they're privately published, for example, they may not have an ISBN, or even an OCLC designation. While it may be helpful to a handful of readers and researchers, I wouldn't use this as a prime reason to make infoboxes mandatory. There's also the common issue of accidentally listing ISBNs/page numbers/publishers/illustrators/etc. that are of a later edition, and not the first. In the past I would go through and change the information to the first edition, or have my entries changed because I accidentally used the info from the first American edition, and not the first British one, or vice versa. Unnecessary headaches, and all things that can easily be stated, simply and properly sourced, in the body of the article. María (habla conmigo) 22:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Summing up objections to infoboxes to this point:

  1. Editors make too many mistakes with infoboxes.
  2. Infoboxes summarize the information too much, overlooking scholastic issues.
  3. vital statistics are only important to a small group of users.

Am I missing anything? Sadads (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the objections I'm seeing so far really seem to come down to specific editors not liking them and so they don't want to use them, despite the rest of Wikipedia doing so. In the end, its to the article's detriment, IMHO, but its also a personal choice. I myself would never work on an novel article without an infobox, but it sounds like some people here would even go so far as to remove them if someone else did the work to add one. Which, to me, is completely wrong. But, again, infoboxes are not "required" anywhere, and its quite easy to say that I don't care about style guides, I don't like them and I won't follow them. It is, again, to the article's detriment, in the end. Still, I do not see any valid objection to at least updating the language to better encourage them where appropriate (instead of requiring them). It will, at least, ensure newer editors follow the larger consensus on what is stylistically appropriate. If there is an article specific consensus against an infobox (and not a consensus of one), then one can always uphold that, but overall these objections really are not applicable to 99% of articles. In particular, the idea that editors make too many mistakes in the infoboxes is completely irrelevant. We have tons of mistakes in articles as well, are we going to stop writing them? Common mistakes can be dealt with using improved documentation. And the "genre" issues mentioned above can also be dealt with, either by better docs or doing as other infoboxes have done and just remove the attribute all together (films, for example, does not include a genre, nor do television series for the same reason). I do find it interesting that there are multiple editors with such a strong bias against infoboxes working just in novels. I have never seen such bias in any other project. It does, at least, help illustrate why the project, despite being fairly small anyway, has such outdated guidelines and its infobox has been so rarely updated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Collectionian, these issues all sound like ones about user preference not the desirability of infoboxes on the whole. Also, I believe that these objections are objections to the fallibility of people in implementing the infoboxes, not in the use of infoboxes themselves. The last objection, of the relative unimportance of infoboxes, I think that this is ignoring Wikipedia's assent to quality and Academic relevance. Excluding the largest body of critics of the Project from your audience provokes greater criticism and public doubt in popular culture. Nearly every other subject has given much greater attention to infoboxes (for example the ones for biology and chemistry subjects) and they do provide very good examples of "vital facts" for articles. We need to pay more attention to the documentation and work to make them more useful for our subject area, not outright ignore because of user fallibility. Sadads (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
We've only heard the opinions of a few editors, so let's not pass judgment just yet. Rewriting the guidelines to better suggest the proper usage of infoboxes in novel articles sounds awesome. The only thing I'm strongly against is insisting (incorrectly, as pointed out above) that they are in any way mandatory. They can be helpful, and can be an asset, but they shouldn't be required automatically, nor used as a yardstick to judge GAs or FAs. María (habla conmigo) 23:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

True, the discussion is not done, but I think Collectionian and I are gauging what issues need to be addressed in the rest of the conversation. We do not need more user input. Sadads (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Yikes not reading my posts very well.

"We do not need more user input"? - Eh? You want to make decisions after only a few hours of debate with only the people that agree with you ("Collectionian and I are gauging what issues need to be addressed"). That is spectacularly unwiki, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Big mistake in last postI wasn't writing very clearly: we do not need more user input concerning the inherent problems associated with infoboxes, including user input, instead we need more conversation concerning guidelines which express approaches to the solutions... oops. Sadads (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Because this conversation began in response to an article I expanded—True at First Light—and which Awadewit reviewed in response to my request, I'll use it as an example. This particular work is peculiar. Ernest Hemingway wrote the work (which is neither memoir nor fiction) after a 1950s trip to Africa at the end of which he was in two plane crashes in two days. He sustained serious head injuries and had difficulty writing the book. Eventually he put it aside; it sat in a safe deposit box for an unspecified period of time, and eventually, after a protracted legal battle his son Patrick edited the piece for his father's centenary. All this information is important, and is presented in the Background section in the article, which also has a nice image of Hemingway and his wife Mary during their trip. When the infobox is in place, the Background section (with the image) conflicts with the infobox and causes text squeeze. Furthermore, who wrote the book? Hemingway or his son? That information is in the text. All the infobox adds, that is not readily available from the lead, is the ISBN. I'm presenting this information, because in my view flexibility is important. For this particular article, for this particular work, the page looks better without the box. Generally I don't have strong feelings about infoboxes, but I do have strong feelings about making a page visually appealing for readers. Policy should not change because of a single work by a well known author that has an unusual history. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

39 Clues Task Force

I think we need this; the expanse of the series and website is enormous and the quality of the articles are horrible. PJTF doesn't want it, however, many of those editors seem willing to help with other things like this. What does the community think?--mono 00:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If some people are willing to maintain it, I'm all for it! Airplaneman 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have experience with working on fiction, but I'm sure willing to help with maintenance. I've been trying to keep rampant speculation out of the articles and removing complete WP:OR for a few weejs now, but I don't really know what the standards are in this area so I've been more focused with keeping new bad material out than removing old possibly bad material. I must also say that I haven't read any of the books or participated in (almost) anything on the website, so plot issues are beyond my ability to remedy. Help and/or guidance with this bunch would be very much appreciated.VernoWhitney (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, so it sounds like a go?--mono 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're willing to maintain it ;). I'll help, of course, but I am more interested in the PJTF. Airplaneman 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am!--mono 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Count me in. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'll create User:Airplaneman/39 Clues Task Force to draft it up sometime soon. Please drop by to help. Airplaneman 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Luck all, I see no reason for the drafting not to be on the WP:Novels subpage of choice! I would say go ahead and start it up! Sadads (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox book template

The Infobox book template curently doesn't have a parameter suitable for displaying the city in which a book was published, but only the country. On the template's talk page I have suggested that such a parameter be added, and this has led to some discussion on what the most suitable modification would be. It seems to me that the discussion could well benefit from editors who use the template expressing their ideas and preferences on the options suggested.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot immunity

FYI, Plot immunity has been nominated for deletion. (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot...Yet Again...

Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Buzz Books

Could we please have article about the children's book range Buzz Books? Buzz Books was very popular during the very late 80s and 90s and released numerous books based only different television shows at the time. Each book was approx 30 pages and the range was owned Reed Children's Books but the inside of the books say all publishing rights are owned by William Heinemann. The shows which books based on were released are TUGS, Joshua Jones, Fireman Sam, Babar, Rupert, Bugs Bunny, Biker Mice from Mars, James Bond Junior, The Animals of Farthing Wood, Gremlins, Micro Machines, The Wind in the Willows, Skeleton Warriors, Barney, In My Pocket, Police Academy and their most popular series based on the episodes of Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends. So would be able to have an article about the range? --VitasV (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is significant coverage on the series/line, I don't see why not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I could start a page, start it as a stub and build on. What's a good book reference site (if any) that might have lists of the series of books? --VitasV (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the library of congress because it's government and kind of automatically a reliable source. PrincessofLlyr royal court 03:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Can also start in your user sandbox, so you can work at while searching for sources, without having to establish notability yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness vs. Notability

I just happened to be in the neighborhood of Steve Alten, looking for the series order for the Meg books, when I noticed that The Loch has a page. Said page has a notice that the article may be deleted because the book lacks notability, and the discussion page says that "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide." So which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This WikiProject has nothing to do with WP:NOTE, which is policy: "A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." The Loch, the article you refer to, needs reliable sources in order to prove that it is a notable book worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Comprehensive does not equal notability, and FYI "comprehensive and detailed guide" is more like "inclusive index". María (habla conmigo) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not either/or -- we are looking at a hierarchy of values. Within the set of notable novels, we can strive for comprehensiveness. --Susfele (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

several categories up for merger

FYI, several categories have been nominated for merger, see

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 22 (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Windup Girl

This article is about a nebula award winning novel. It is pretty descriptive, and i'm wondering why it is still in the Stub class. And it's got an infobox. i don't know if this is the right forum to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Left a response on Talk:The Windup Girl. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaur Planet (novel)

The synopsis section reads like the blurb on the back of the books. (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Hey, at the moment I'm working on two different novels, Elyon and The Narrow Door at Colditz. Could someone check out these articles? I've placed them on my userpage. If someone doesn't mind, check them out and add anything you can. Tetobigbro talk 05:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Elyon and changed a few things. You have references listed, but without inline citations. I suggest you reference within the article instead of just listing them at the end. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add them if I can. Tetobigbro talk 18:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Speculative fiction nominated to be featured portal

Portal:Speculative fiction is now a Featured portal candidate. Please come participate in the discussion here. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Roald Dahl task force move.

I have been asked to move the Roald Dahl task force here by wiki project childrens literature. Is thia O.K.? --Sillybillypiggy (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would support the move. It seems that Dahl's work is better under novels and not just children's literature. PrincessofLlyr royal court 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move. Seems logical. Airplaneman 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the quantity of his work that was aimed at an adult audience, the task force would seem to belong here.--Susfele (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Hey I am currently working on ceating an article on the novel Elyon, and I am having trouble remembering the plot, so I can't make a detailed summary. Has anyone read this book, if so can you go to my userpage, follow the link and edit it? Thanks,Tetobigbro talk 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Try this Airplaneman 16:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help.Tetobigbro talk 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Elections postponed...

until when? Until someone decides to get them started? Or key members of the project are active again? PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to compile a list of active users and send out a newsletter before we start any elections. I was planning to do it, but I have gotten wrapped up in several other things including the new Wp:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. If you want to get started, we should start by trimming the members list so that it only includes active Wikipedia editors. Sadads (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd agreed with Sadads...first we need to get the member list updated (Films does a thing of annually moving everyone to inactive and asking folks to move themselves back to active to reup their membership), get the newsletter going again, and really just get the project more active again before dealing with Coordinators and the like. As it is, I thought the project was pretty much dead.... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay...I would be glad to go through and move all members that are not active on Wikipedia. Do you think I should completely remove them or start an inactive list? I was going to say we should send out a roll call notice, but that could be done through the newsletter. I'll start with the members list and then move on to the newsletter. @AnmaFinotera - there was a discussion here about reviving the project. I didn't comment, but I'm on board for a revival. PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It all sounds great! Er...what are we electing? Oh. Never mind. Just found the linkSusfele (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest moving all to "inactive" and sending out a newsletter to everyone (even inactive users, so if they log in again they'll know they've been removed from the list). Could we draft up the newsletter below? Airplaneman 03:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All users who have not edited anything since 2009 have been moved to inactive. Also, a few indef blocked members are on that list. PrincessofLlyr royal court 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... should be safe to remove the indeff'd users. Airplaneman 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggest archiving the current newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Newsletter/Current and writing a new one that way we can just transcribe the page using AWB. I can do distribution.Sadads (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Airplaneman 10:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Construction is ongoing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Newsletter June 2010. Airplaneman 11:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking at the newsletter and noticed nothing about the elections, was it there and I missed it, or is it not going in the newsletter?Tetobigbro talk 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's under construction; most of the stuff was copied from the August 2009 issue. Feel free to add the info :). Airplaneman 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok will do. Thanks,Tetobigbro talk 04:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized, when are the elections going to formally begin?Tetobigbro talk 04:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am at the moment editing the newsletter exponentially, please let me know if I have changed anything too important. If I have, I apologize. Tetobigbro talk 04:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some things that might be useful in helping up membership some would be getting the project page a bit reorganized and cleaned up. I think WP:WikiProject Films has a pretty decent page as does WP:WikiProject Anime and manga (both projects I'm currently active in). and really those of us who are working in novels being more active in the project page and in the article PRs, FAs, etc. It might also hope to create an invite template (if we don't have one already) to use to invite new folks we see working in novels to tell them more about the project. Maybe merge in some of the inactive subgroups and the like as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea to me.Tetobigbro talk 05:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from a former coord

Regarding coordinator elections: Kevin and I once postponed them because the last election had a grand total of five votes. Later, we held others which were marginally more successful, but the project as a whole was and still mostly is dead. I suspect that the most recent elections were suspended/postponed because of the "high" number of candidates—all of one.
Regarding the newsletter: don't forget to delete all of the old (December 2009) content!
Regarding other stuff: back in the dark ages, I proposed that NOVELS start an A-class review system to attempt to bring the project together. In my typical fashion, however, I then did nothing to promote or start it. Would it be worth it to dust off this idea and give it a shot? —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I think we could try it once we get this project rolling again. Airplaneman 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm game for it. This is under general suggestions again, but where could we find the info about literature related articles that were promoted to GA, FA, etc. in the last six months? (for the newsletter) PrincessofLlyr royal court 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, ArticleBot, which we could use to get these lists, has been down for awhile and no one knows when it will be back, so the only way to find it would be by hand. I do think it would be great if the newsletter included highlights of recent FAs, GAs, DYKs, as well as current FACs, GANs, FARs, and GARs, on novel related articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll look around and see if I can find some. I've nominated a new collaboration here is anyone's interested in voting. PrincessofLlyr royal court 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I've brought up the issue of ArticleAlertbot at the bot owner noticeboard. They've got some people working on it. Brambleclawx 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Ok for a minute I thought that the project was picking back up. I dont understand though. We had been talking about the elections, but since then...nothing. When are the elections even supposed to begin?Tetobigbro talk 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See above. The project went inactive but a few of us are trying to kick start it. Before doing elections, though, need more active members as the last one only had five votes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. Tetobigbro talk 02:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Temple at Thatch (Evelyn Waugh, 1925)

I wonder if there is any interest from the project in this curious piece of Waugh marginalia? Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. That is definitely under our project's scope. I have added our banner to the talk page with a preliminary assessment of quality and importance. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr royal court 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mario Puzo "expert" request


If anyone has any particular "expertise" in Puzo's work can they please see this topic on the crime novels task force page

thanks...Chaosdruid (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

William Gaddis

William Gaddis is one of the very few modern writers whom novelists whose own work regularly appears on Ten Best lists talk of in the same sentence as Proust, Joyce and Woolf. He is one of the best novelists of the 20th century, and also one of he most influential. When Pynchon's first novels were published, people thought they had been written by Gaddis using a pseudonym. The New York Times recently ran a poll to select the best novel of the past 25 years. The accompanying article listed Gaddis as one of the 5 or 6 authors who might have won had his second novel, JR, not been written a few years too soon to qualify. To read an article on Gaddis by Jonathan Franzen, please click here.Promking (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But his two masterpieces, The Recognitions and J R, are listed as LOW importance on your quality scale. Why?

They were low, because the person who was assessing either: a) didn't have enough information to judge their importance already on the page or b) hadn't heard of Gaddis. I certainly hadn't and I am an English Undergrad! I agree though, the awards that both books received per refs increase their importance. Sadads (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I wrote the original post above but forgot to put in the four tildes to sign it (now I have). I can provide additional references if anyone wishes. Promking (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
And here's one. In a long book review, novelist Cynthia Ozick wrote: "The Recognitions is always spoken of as the most overlooked important work of the last several literary generations. Tony Tanner: The critical neglect of this book is really extraordinary. David Madden: An underground reputation has kept it on the brink of oblivion. Through the famous obscurity of The Recognitions, Mr. Gaddis has become famous for not being famous enough." Promking (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This clinches Gaddis' importance: The Recognitions is listed on Time magazine's list of the 100 best novels, on the Modern Library's list of the 100 best novels, AND in Harold Bloom's Western Canon.Promking (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the novel's Quality Scale rating!!Promking (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, any user (even if they're not a member of the Wikiproject) is capable of changing an article's importance/class assessment. You don't have to ask permission. :) If you're unsure about what the article should be assessed as, however, there is always the Assessment page. María (habla conmigo) 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Infobox Character

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Cleaning house regarding which categories in the template are necessary, which ones are not, and which ones are specialities that are only relevant to certain types of characters. It would be good to have as many people there to talk about each category, and to propose new ones if necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Seekers (novel series)

There is currently a merge discussion at Talk:Seekers (novel series). Your comments are encouraged and appreciated. Airplaneman 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: italic article titles

An RfC is in progress questioning regarding the italicizing of article titles through DISPLAYTITLE. The guideline currently restricts the use of this feature to "special cases" per the previous RfC at Template talk:Italic title#RFC: Should this be used?. The current RfC questions whether WikiProjects have the right/ability to determine if it should be used on additional titles, and if it should be allowed to be used at all. Discuss is at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Request for comment: Use of italics in article names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Book list

I have put forward a change with Template:Book list that may be of interest to some readers here. d'oh! talk 13:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also a proposed change for Template talk:Infobox book series being discussed at Template talk:Infobox book series#A few changes -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Fablehaven -> task force?

I just ran across this WikiProject covering the Fablehaven series. I don't think that the series needs a wikiproject, especially given that the founder is blocked and very few of the members active. My idea is to move the wikiproject to a task force and begin work revitalizing it there. The task force would fall under this project's scope, so can I get some comments about whether or not that's welcome? Thanks, PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely falls within our purview. If anyone wants to take it on, that would be awesome. Suggest adding a task force option to Template:Novels and redirecting the project template to the novels one. You may also want to talk to Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature, Sadads (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I was kind of offering to take it on. :) Help would be appreciated, of course. I thought about Children's lit, but that falls under novels. I could go with that though, if it would be better. That's part of what I wanted opinions on. Thanks for the suggestions. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking at least for manpower, you might be able to acquire some from children's lit. I see no problem in making it a taskforce here.Sadads (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've notified children's lit., so I'll probably create here and see if anyone there is interested in helping. I'll wait another day or two for opinions from both projects before acting. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Any romance novel experts?

There is an AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Crippes for an article about a romance novelist. Can someone who knows about romance novels chime in? She's won a Romance Writers of America RITA Award - is that important enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"? (I could tell you, for example, that in Science Fiction, the Hugo Award or Nebula Award certainly would qualify, while the Balrog award probably wouldn't.) --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is notable however my say so on the subject can probably be seen as subjective since I have worked on all of the articles involved (Romance Writers of America, RITA, Crippes, etc). It might be worth asking User:Karanacs for her input since she has worked extensively with this subject/genre by bringing up several romance related articles to Good/FA status. --ImGz (t/c) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I have nominated The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sadads (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Some problems

I continue to see problems with the recategorization. An entire series of pages that I started on Sadad's advice some months ago have been labeled American historical novels although the subject is medieval England and Wales. Yes, the books were written by an American novelist, but the category doesn't reflect the subject of the novels. Also, The Secret Garden, a children's novel, has been recategorized as an American children's novel. The author took American citizenship at the end of her life and the novel takes place, entirely, outside of America. How shall these situations be handled? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

On the historical novels, 2 categories: one American historical novels and one in Category:Historical novels by setting. I am not sure about Secret Garden, was it published in the US or why the author was in the US? Sadads (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, since my watchlist consists mostly of novel related pages and I've been gone for four days, am trying to figure out what's going on. Was confused - meant The Little Princess - written in England, set in America, author was English who lived in America. Probably okay as American novel. I'll recat the historical novels. But, I am concerned about that I'm seeing the mistakes on pages I watch. For instance an article I wrote and Sadads passed as GA has been categorized a stub. Seems a bit odd. Makes me wonder how many other mistakes. I would have suggested, had I had time before I left, to recat to 19th century Am novels, 20th century Am novels and 21st century Am novels, if the big category needs to be depopulated. Have we actually achieved consensus the American novels, and Children's novels categories need to be depopulated? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
We hadn't reached consensus on these issues, but I have been probing novel categories for American novels by identifying United States in the country part of the infobox, hence the increase in novels in Category:American novels. Some of the articles previously identified to be in American novels got caught up in the sort. Once we decide what genre's reenter or if we decide on an allinclusion category, I will reintegrate them. Haven't started on the 20th century, 19th, century, etc. categories. I think the century categories will make it easier to monitor all American novels. Will do that soon, I was polishing my ability to sort novels into American novels through infobox information, Sadads (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh and a response about the stub tagging, have had a few kinks in that, will be sorting Category:Novel stubs soon in the hopes to identify articles that were improperly labeled as stubs. Have decided that that isn't the best way to find out what articles are poorly assessed,Sadads (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Going back to American historical novels, the cat page says that it's more concerned with American authors and publishing companies, and that the actual setting of the story is a different category altogether. Do we want to keep the category set up that way? If we change it, will we have to reconsider the qualification of American for romance novels and other genres that might commonly be set outside the States? Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
They can be sorted by using the Category:Countries in fiction categories and subcategories alongside the genre + nationality category. For example, A Kingdom of Dreams should be sorted into Category:Scotland in fiction and Category:American romance novels. I feel like I might be misunderstanding you, Sadads (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) So will you be cross categorizing novels published both in the United States and outside of the United States? Has a discussion about this been posted anywhere? In my view, an American historical novel is one set in a specific period of American history, regardless of author nationality of place of publication. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have no problem with that, except that (1) the category page specifies it's about author/publisher--so we would need to change that, and (2) historical novels might be the only genre where the "American novels" cat could be defined by the plot rather than by the externals, so that if we changed the category, we'd lose the symmetry/parallelism with the other American novel cats. I've tagged the three Plantagenet novels by setting and removed the historical novels cat completely, since the "by setting" cat is part of the historical novels cat already. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to delete them. They aren't really notable and should belong in the article with the author. I think the symmetry has been lost if books set in one country are categorized as being set in another country. Sorry, to be blunt, but that's how I feel about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are films about Moby-Dick being categorized as 19th century novels? And children's books are now in the 19th century novel category. It would seem important to discuss these changes and define what constitutes a novel. I've been reverting quite a few of the recent changes, but have decided that I haven't the time to fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, they must have fallen into one of the cross categories and I didn't catch it on my visual screening. I watch each page to make sure I am catching novels, but Category:Moby-Dick must be in both, I will fix that so it doesn't happen again, that was a miscategorization. If you can tell me which pages those were in I will, examine them and figure out how they were miscategorized. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Truthkeeper88; "In my view, an American historical novel is one set in a specific period of American history, regardless of author nationality of place of publication." WCCasey (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what the Category:Historical novels by setting is for. No need to duplicate an existing category. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Categories do not have to be mutually exclusive. But more important, the American historical fiction is being used incorrectly if to define books written by American authors, but to ignore the era and setting. Sorting it out and providing a definition would alleviate problems. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a definition on Category:American historical novels, Sadads (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's the definition for Category:American historical novels : This category is for historical novels either written by American authors or primarily published in the United States. I'd propose changing the category to "Historical novels written by American novelists" , or something along those lines, for the sake of accuracy. The definition for Category:American historical novels should be applied to novels set in a specific period of American history. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:Historical novels has subdivisions "by nationality" and "by setting" and it would be good if both of these subdivisions were used wherever possible; many historical novels are international in setting, and even authors may sometimes be multinational. I would also support the warning above about the use of "American" in category names: although it is common usage, it's known to be offensive to people who live in the "other" Americas, namely the south and central ones, not to mention Canada. Some "American" (i.e. U.S.) publishers now insist in their style sheets on the use of "United States" rather than "America" or "American," and I'd imagine Wikipedia must have some advice on this somewhere. United States isn't always comfortable as an adjective so it can result in some awkwardness but in most cases it's fairly painless. In the case of historical novels, why not have "Historical novels by United States authors"? There is already a category: novels set in the historical United States: isn't this the one that should be used rather than "American historical novels" where the American refers to setting? "American historical novels" is a category just begging for diffusion if you ask me. There are several US historical novel period settings subcategories available as well.--Icuc2 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics permissible in titles of articles on books?

Yes, this subject again, as above. There's a new RfC happening in another corner of Wikipedia. See the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment:Use_of_italics_in_article_titles. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:American novels

Recently, I began diffusing this category Category:American novels into subcategories "by genre" and "by ethnic background" because it is overwhelmingly huge and increasingly impossible to navigate(3500 articles or so). I subdivided these in this way, because these two larger subcategory hierarchies encompass many of the subdivisions used by academic courses and studies to make their scope manageable. Upon making this edit twice, User:Icuc2, approached me asking as to why I would remove American novels from the page. My response was that Asian American novels is already a subcategory so, logically is included in American novels. His response that this was something in the Nature of cleansing minorities from American literature. General policy on categories pushes towards consensus opinions on whether the category should be diffused or not.

Any thoughts? I am assuming dispersing into genre is alright because several genres were already present when I started and it too, logically, doesn't exclude books from the broader category American novels.

Below are pro's and con's of leaving American novels on the pages with a Minority American novels category:

  • Minority novels don't get excluded from the large concept of American literature, especially when some "White American" novels don't fall into any of the genre categories
  • The American novels category gets larger and bulkier when their is a logical subcategory that can keep everything in smaller packages(See hierarchy below)
  • Extra categories get left on the bottom of the page that duplicate the same concept.

Thanks all, Sadads (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally I think the categories noted above are problematic. Survey courses in Am. Lit. include novels by minorities. To give Gone with the Wind its own category and to move a novel such as Native Son out of American novels is very hard to understand. In my view, this should have been brought up here first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I actually didn't do either of those edits. Part of the problem I saw when I encountered the category was that we were being very inconsistant which articles were in the category and which ones weren't, so I decided Being Bold was the best option and I would organize it into categories that are easier to populate and can be managed from both the genre side and the American novels side. Step 2 is to go through some of the genres and find more American novels that are not being categorized in this very large category.
But leaving novels like Native Son out of American novels, doesn't really matter because African American novels is a subcategory of American novels anyway. Sadads (talk)
I've had a brief look at your recent contributions. What I find worrying is that novels written, for example, by native Americans, is no longer in the American novel category. That is problematic. Will wait for others to weigh in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
They are still in Category:American novels by ethnic background. Actually I think Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories might apply as good advice in this case. Sadads (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
We simply need to get people more used to using the "ethnic background" category in their searches. All the ethnic groups are still there (and the LGBT novels are listed under "genre"); maybe once we get the list down to a manageable size, it will be more obvious how the subcategories are working..... Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, we'd be able to clear out the "American novels" list entirely, so that everything is in sub-categories. But we don't have a category for either non-genre novels or for "straight white author" novels. So although I agree with the need to disperse the category, the danger is that what's left over will represent only "white" non-genre literature. And that's the real problem we face. What we should do is create a category for "non-genre" novels, which would then allow Native Son to sit next to Moby-Dick (but not GWTW, since that's been dispersed into American Historical Novels!). One issue here is that we're treating ethnic background like a genre, when we need to disperse books according to ethnicity AND genre..... Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree. An American novelist is an American novelist, regardless of skin color or gender or ethnicity. This is not a good path to take, in my view. Certainly some discussion should have occurred before making these changes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you object to the "by genre" categorization, that had already been happening for some time with Science fiction novels, Fantasy novels, and the Young Adult novels? That is where the bulk of the categorization has gone. I can undo or modify the by ethnic background ones with AWB if we decide the process thus far has been incorrect.
And I think Aristophanes is correct, we need something for the non-genre novels that doesn't elevate it above the others.Sadads (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
We can always add the ethnic novels back later--no reason they can't be listed both places. I have a hunch that pruning the list by ethnicity is going to affect a much smaller percentage than pruning by genre (where even GWTW gets dispersed), so it may well be that once the list is fully pruned, we'll have a lot more space to add back the ethnic and LGBT novels. **Also, I went ahead and removed the GWTW, Catch-22 and Moby-Dick from the list of "American novels" subcats (not erased; just moved); that takes care of the problematic status of those entries. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
From my encounters with LGBT stuff, such as Category:LGBT-related films, I believe that topic area has been treated as a genre or topical category, not as something related to a distinct subculture. That is my impression though, maybe we should get some input from people that handle that more often.Sadads (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at how many titles are being dispersed into the ethnic categories. Looking just at the A titles (which I believe Sadads has already finished sorting), I see for each category: African American 3; Arab American 1; Asian American 4; Greek American 1; Hispanic American 1; Italian American 2; Jewish American 4; and Native American 1. In total, only 17 titles were removed from "American Novels", which now has only 38 titles remaining. Given these numbers, I don't think the ethnic tags are trimming down the list very much--the list would remain manageable if we added those 17 titles back in. So perhaps we could focus simply on pruning the list by genre, and let the ethnic texts stay double-tagged (e.g., American and African American)? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on semi-Wikibreak this week - or least trying to be. I think the decision to change the categories for novels without discussion is quite bold. My watchlist is full of changes, and many I don't agree with. Not many people respond here, but I'd like to see a further discussion of this, and to see exactly what the categories looked like before they were changed. Please post a link to the pre-change American novel categories with sub-categories. I'd suggest taking this discussion to the Village Pump, or maybe having an RfC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be completely emptying the category American novels according to my watchlist. Please confirm whether I'm correct. If so, why not just delete the category? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, we are diffusing to genre subcategories articles that can be better described by a genre which is logically included in "American novels". Category diffusion for extremely large categories is pretty standardized. Because of the above discussion, I will repopulate the ethnic-background ones into the main cat towards the end of the week. The idea is to make the category more managable, an example that I have worked on is Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army where the units aren't simply listed but are listed by function and size (the equivalent of diffusing Category:American literature into genre and medium subcategories). The category American novels is still important as a supercategory, but is less important on the pages themselves, Sadads (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you're doing. Please be aware that some categories are incorporated in nav templates. If, in your re-categorization of all American novels, you decide to remove categories by author, the templates will be depopulated as well. Again, I think this should have been discussed elsewhere for more input. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For now just genres (note change in category description), that is the only thing I am modifying, templates stay the same, other categories stay the same except I am removing Category:English-language novels because that is assumed unless specified in the article (I have yet to find an American Spanish-language novel which has surprised me.) Also, as soon as I am done, I am going to go to the individual genres, and we will see a vast increase from there in the subcats of American novels. Its a good way of crosspopulating when people fail to realize that we categorize by both genre and nationality. The simpler the categories, less categories to add to a page, the easier it is for people to figure them out.
Do you have another place that you wish to discuss this? If the consensus dictates that we need to add Category:American novels back, that is not a hard process in WP:AWB. I can turn out about 300-400 or so repetitive edits an hour with that. I am going to do that with the "by ethnic background" articles as soon as I finish the already cross categorized American novels this week. Sadads (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at Pride and Prejudice with the categories British novels and English-language novels. Now look at The Sun Also Rises. I've re-added American novels, because Wikipedia should be consistent. If we have British novels, then we should also apply American novels to articles about American novels. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
But Category:American novels and Category:American roman a clef novels novels are essentially the same thing, except one is more specific, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing large categories. I will glad go through and do English novels, and British novels eventually. American novels just seemed to be the one that was the most overpopulated, thus warranted diffusion, Sadads (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If a user were to browse Category:American novels until yesterday they could find all our articles about Category:American novels. Now they have to know that a novel is a Category:American roman a clef novels to find the article? I'll leave this conversation with the comment that I oppose the implementation of this without prior discussion in a venue where more editors can weigh in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see such a rapid response to this issue. I have the same sense of this issue as User:Truthkeeper88; that is, I feel I want to see Category:American novels remain comprehensive even at the risk of being so large it is impractical to use. There are other examples of this sort of category: the people born in (year) categories, for example. I doubt very many people actually use these over-large category pages to find topics, but they still serve some housekeeping purposes. Diffusing American novels is an inherently difficult problem. There are any number of people with PhDs specializing in genre theory who could give you any number of reasons why. The novel itself is a genre, so it could be subdivided in theory, but in practice, this is difficult, as anyone who has ever had trouble finding a book in a bookstore because it was placed in a different section knows. I think you can only justify actually removing items from the main American novel category if they are so clearly different as to form an easily distinguishable group. American graphic novels would be a fairly clear-cut case. But almost any of the ordinary genres, like "romance novels," "crime novels," etc. would not make for a clean cut. And then, subdividing by genre is infinitely easier than subdividing by ethnicity, gender, or other identity-based factors. Of course, having these as supplemental categories is generally fine: people can always argue about the best terminology and whether the category has a right to exist as such, but supplemental categories can always be ignored, so they are less likely to offend than enforced subdivisions. For most novels, it is assumed that it is possible to categorize the nationality of the work (though this can occasionally be in question), and it many cases it should be possible to categorize the subgenre; the ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of the writer or subject (if any of these are of interest to communities of readers) can also be specified. The nationality of the work and the language in which it is written are the most clearly defined characteristics. Nationality is largely determined by the legal nationality of the writer and the place of publication, and language tends to be obvious in most cases. So it would seem to be important to maintain these two categories, though they could be subdivided if appropriate, for example, Indian literature in English, which incidentally, looks badly in need of population. (Personally, I'm more worried about novels that already exist not being properly categorized than I am about overpopulated categories. As for supplemental groupings I'm generally of the opinion that the more's the merrier, as long as they are of value to some community of readers, and these really will be the useful category pages that people will look at. But they can't really be used as substitutes for the more stable categories based on language and nationality.--Icuc2 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia though, is that if someone disagrees with how a book is classified they can add additional Categories to it, so unlike the bookstore where the books are only in one physical location, the novels gain a micro-location which feeds into many macro-locations which are currently overpopulated (both genres and American novels). The current categorization effort is based on what the article identifies itself as. We aren't going looking for other identifications, if they don't have a sub-genre, then so be it, they stay, but the subgenre (which logically and physically are subordinate to the Super category (macro-location) American novels) becomes the best organizational means of finding what you want. Many of the articles that I have been hitting with the semi-automated process are returning, 2, 3, and 4 subcategories and ones I am doing manually often fall into at least 2.
Concerning underpopulation, I agree, I think under categorization of novels articles is a huge problem for both the Nationalities and the Genres, that is part of the reason I am making the cross populated categories: I want to populate both categories without extra clutter. I think one of the next steps perhaps is to bulk up the population again based on what is described in Infoboxes for re-diffusion. I probably should write something for AWB that finds publication location in the infobox and adds the category based on that. Hmmm. Will try to figure that out. Sadads (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For the populating the genres and countries, you can see how the cross populated categories, actually exposes more articles to the by nationality categories, in Category:Magic realism novels, many of which were not labeled by their place before. Sadads (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm repeating myself endlessly, and its extremely frustrating. The changes you're contemplating are big and should be discussed and achieve consensus. All American novels should populate the American novel category, rather than being deleted. Again, I'll the use The Sun Also Rises as an example: I'd it categorize as modernist (which btw, doesn't even exist) among other labels, but first and foremost it's an American novel. Those of us who work and teach in the field of American literature understand the difficulty of labeling fiction. To have this done with no discussion is deeply disturbing. It's fine to add genres. It's not fine to depopulate the entire American novels category.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Since that appears to be the case, I asked for several other opinions, we will see if any come through. Sadads (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I was asked to comment. The way to handle ethnic novels is to categorize them as such, in addition to leaving them in the main category. That's what public libraries and bookstores do, for it corresponds to the interests of the readers: There's usually a main alphabetic section, and then some separate displays by genre. (they do normally keep mysteries and sf separately, and sometimes romance, because of the large number of readers who want only their preferred section. Personally, when looking myself for a book, I find it annoying. )
One way to break up the category is by date: novels first published in the 19th century, etc. That's what academic libraries generally do--the division is first by country, then century, with an added division at 1950. It does have the disadvantage of separating US from UK and from Canada, Australia, etc.
We are not limited to using a single sequence: we can use multidimensional categories (cross populated categories) I think it would be helpful, for example, to have one for all novels regardless of language and country, arranged by author, and one arranged by title.
Ethnicity is real. There's no point in ignoring the actual world in favor of a theoretical scheme of equality. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My solicited comment:

I don’t have much original to add here, but I’ve found the category American Novels to be fairly useless because of its size and placing novels into subcategories seems a good strategy. There are certain novels (say…Huckleberry Finn) that are of an essential American quality as opposed to novels that are merely written by Americans (or taking place in America, but that’s another discussion). In short, the category is bloated and needs to be pared down. Subcategories work for me. There are currently 39 genre sub-cats and 8 ethnic background sub-cats (plus additional sub-sub-cats). I don’t see a need to specifically remove novels from the all-encompassing American Novels category, but I don’t see much use for it now, as it stands. Zotdragon (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • (requested comment) I can see both sides of this issue. The Am. novels cat is unnavigable at its current size. However, clearing all of those pages into subcategories is not necessary I think. When possible, articles should be listed in the subcategories, but they could still be listed as "American novels". People have the option of still navigating by the subcategories and everything still falls under American novels. Also, I think some of the smaller subcategories should not be used. "Greek American" for instance. We don't need a category that only contains one page. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess part of the reason that I want to get rid of the Category:American novels is so it is easier to monitor when new articles that enter the category haven't been given a sub-category, that way someone who tries to add categories to the articles, don't have to go through 3500+ articles. I mean, I can populate these subcategories using cross categorization in AWB but I have to go through and read all of the other articles looking for missing one or more of the categories. From a maintenance perspective if we us American novels as a category to diffuse from then it is easier to make sure that the article has all of it's other standard categories on it such as Category:Novels by year and Category:Novels by genre. You wouldn't believe how many of these I have added since I started doing this. Sadads (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Back to Jane Austen for a moment: She has eleven novels listed under the "Novels by JA" category, of which only 4 are listed as British novels. E.M. Forster has seven novels listed, none of which are listed as either British or English novels. Same with Graham Greene--he's 0 for 21 under British or English novels. My sense is that the Brit category focuses more on dispersing literature by author. Perhaps this would be a good idea for us? Meanwhile, looking through the lists on the Am.novels cat page, I am amazed at how many of those books are clearly genre novels. We could probably halve the entire category just by dispersing the science-fiction, young-adult and fantasy genres. And I doubt many people would complain about those being removed from the main list. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Hemingway has a category and a nav template , but that does not preclude his novels from the American novels category. I'm happy to see the conversation above, but honestly I think it should have occurred before the changes were implemented. In my view the genres should be agreed upon and implemented before the depopulation of the the parent category. How many entries have been removed from the American novels category? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • (EC) Truthkeeper:About 1500, but like I said, not that hard to add American novels back (and it would probably increase the number of articles in the cat).
    • Would by author and by genre work for everyone? That makes it easier on Users to navigate:two routes to the novel minimum from American novels for each and addresses the concern for having distinctly "American" for everything without leaving the grumpy, old, traditional white men as the last population in Category:American novels? :) Sadads (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with DGG - cross population is the preferred method. Also understand that ethnicity is real, but if the entry is removed from the parent category, the ethnicity becomes the primary descriptor.
      • Agree that Huckleberry Finn is an American novel - the problem becomes subjective then. Is The Sun Also Rises American, French, Jazz-Age, modernist, all of the above? The conversation should focus first on the method of cross-population, then whether to depopulate or not.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On the genre's thing, I have only been creating novels genres that already exist.Sadads (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to clarify my opinion: I think any work put into a genre subcategory should certainly also be in the main category. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with DGG. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Maintenance is going to be a bear. Sadads (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see the American Novels cat be simply a parent cat with as few individual titles as possible. It looks to me like Category:English novels relies much more on "Novels by author" than on maintaining individual titles (that is, lots of well-known authors do not have their titles listed individually), and given the size of the American Novels cat, that approach may be preferable for us as well. At the very least, prune out the young-adult, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, thriller, etc. novels. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Category:English novels is nicely done, I agree. What I'm worried about is losing the ability to find a novel if a user only knows the name. Creating a category by author, where appropriate is a good solution. Also, don't mind seeing broad categories such as young adult, sci-fi and such split out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This discussion appears to be moot since the work of depopulating American novels and dispersing into other categories continues. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need to reduce the number of genres we have cats for--I don't think any other national-novels cat has nearly the number of genre categories as we do. Should we consider focusing on keeping only a few, highly-populated (and less "academic") genres (fantasy, horror, sic-fi, children's/YA, etc.--what used to be "genre" fiction) for dispersion and then either un-disperse the rest or allow them to be double-tagged? People above seemed to agree that some of those categories are not at all problematic for us. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful think everyone here would consult the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge's Taxonomy, which I think has some advantages over the system used in Category: English novels. Personally, I find that category page rather unhelpful, though it certainly looks nice on the surface. Many people who look up "English novels" will in fact be looking for novels in English, not novels written by English writers. Or they may be looking for British novels. Is it really that helpful to have subdivisions of "Novels by (author)"? I would think that someone looking for a novel by an author would simply look up the author. These categories are certainly convenient to have but it seems strange to list them all at the top of the page. Sadads proposed subdivisions are potentially much more useful, I think. However, I really need to point out that "Category: [ethnicity] novels" is really weird. Novels don't have ethnicities, though they may be by writers who have ethnicities, or about ethnic concerns. "Novels by Greek-Americans" would be more correct. There are already "ethnic literature" categories, so it is somewhat redundant to have "ethnic novel" categories, though it will be helpful to people looking for, say, African American novels as opposed to African American poetry. Again, though, I feel the categories should be fully populated at all the levels rather than split, even if this makes the top level categories to large to be practical. Some people will need them.--Icuc2 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I ask in all seriousness: Do a lot of people use the category pages as search tools? If I'm looking for a novel, I'd use the search box or even Google before I'd use the category page (and even then only if the category list is small enough to scan quickly). So maybe my perspective on the category pages is not in line with most other people's.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
That was my perspective as well, Sadads (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I find small categories useful sometimes, as when I'm looking to find Greek-American writers or something. But they are usually so woefully incomplete that its not much help. The inclusion of category names on article pages is useful, though, even when people don't consult the category page, because the categories act as a kind of summary.--Icuc2 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above. The categories act as a summary. Many novel articles fall into multiple categories. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree, categories are fundamentally useful, but why can't one category summarize the same information that two did? Sadads (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Responses to several points made by others above:

  • Agree that categories are useless for searching; any kind of searching within Wikipedia is difficult. Google to find the Wikipedia article you want.
  • I don't think much of American novels, English novels, etc. as categories - but I don't have to use them, right? I don't think editors can or need to agree on categories. Anyone who doesn't like the existing choices is free to create new ones.
  • Agree that deletion of existing categories should not be done without discussion.
  • Every category page should include a statement defining the category and providing some disambiguation (i.e. links to alternative categories) WCCasey (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Are there any genres that we agree could be dispersed without ruining the main Am.Novels cat? Even Truthkeeper admitted, "Also, don't mind seeing broad categories such as young adult, sci-fi and such split out." So, which literary genres do we feel least compunction about sorting? (Or, we could adopt the Celestial Emporium scheme suggested by Icuc and create new categories: "Novels for computer geeks," "Novels I was forced to read in school," "Novels I wish I'd written," etc. That might be more fun....) Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe you've misunderstood. I meant to disfuse from the main American novels category into broad categories such as science fiction, juvenile fiction, and so on. I did not endorse eliminating subcategories. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
My sense is that you cannot disperse (is that the same as "diffuse" by the way?) unless the division is clear cut, which is unlikely to be the case with genre. For example, science fiction would seem to be among the clearer genres, but take a novel like Frankenstein: is it science fiction, horror, gothic, or just an ordinary English novel? (Strangely, Frankenstein is not categorized as an English novel according to the Wikipedia page, though it is a "British science fiction novel"--maybe that's why the English novels category seems so spic and span). Now I suppose you could say that as long as every novel fits at least one genre category, the category could be dispersed. But that won't be the case, since many novels are generically uncategorizable. In my view it is a mistake to disperse / diffuse unless all the members of the category can be happily diffused into the proposed subcategories. And I don't see that happening with genres, and certainly not ethnicities. Dates is the only plausible suggestion I've seen so far, but I don't see how "20th Century American novels" is going to solve overpopulation, and if you slice too thinly, say, into decades, it probably wouldn't please everyone either. I still feel you can stick with the unwieldy large American novels category and just worry about creating, rationally naming, and properly filling supplementary subcategories. Then people need to check actual novels and make sure they are properly categorized.--Icuc2 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I would simply disperse Victor (and his monster) into all those categories--why not? A lot of these genre novels are already double and even triple categorized: young-adult/horror/vampire/romance, for instance. However, I don't think the problem is with the genre subcats (I'm ignoring ethnicity for the most part; there aren't enough of those to worry about them overloading the parent cat) as much as it is with which books get left in the parent category: Does Frankenstein get to stay and play with the remaining non-genre books? One thing we might do is simply cull through all the books that are presented by their publication genre in the lede. Don't try to force a book into a genre, but if the lede, the infobox and/or the pre-existing categories clearly suggest something, you have more reason to justify moving it. Although admittedly, that works better for fantasy, sci-fi, YA, etc. than for comedy, political, bildungsroman, and so forth. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As I recall, the reason Frankenstein became so angry in the first place was because they thought he was "different" and wouldn't let him stay with the "normal" people.--Icuc2 (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of minimizing confusion, I would encourage everyone to try and stick with the official Wikipedia terminology in Wikipedia:Categorization which (as I understand it) uses "diffusion" to describe the practice of moving categorized items into subcategories, in contrast to "non-diffusing subcategories," where the item is not moved but, in a sense, copied. A large part of the discussion here boils down to whether American novels subcategories ought to follow the {{allincluded}} or {{distinguished subcategory}} pattern, for which templates are available. For the record I'm so far in favor of {{allincluded}}, and I believe both Frankenstein and Borges would both support me on that.--Icuc2 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree in full with DGG and PrincessofLlyr and support Sadad's willingness to do something about the overly large category. Additionally, I like Icuc2's idea of using {{allincluded}} over {{distinguished subcategory}}. Airplaneman 11:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
If the dust has settled... I wonder if there is general agreement for an {{allincluded}} version of Sadads' subcategories list below? To me that arrangement seems pretty good, except for the phrasing of "American novels by ethnic background," which I think would have to be "American novels by author's ethnicity" (and in the categories themselves, "novels by x-Americans" where x is some ethnic adjective). Otherwise I don't see how we can clearly distinguish ethnicity of novels. It was suggested by Sadads that the focus of these subcategories should be on specific ethnic identity issues (or perhaps ethnic themes) in the novels rather than ethnicity of the author, but I don't see how that could work in practice. There is also the problem of "American novels by author's ethnicity" conspicuously missing "white Americans" or "Americans of European descent," which someone will (or should) point out gives the misleading impression that white Americans have no ethnicity, which is no longer an accepted premise of literary studies (see Whiteness studies). If White folk are not to get a subcategory, then the group description would have to be something like "American novels by ethnic minority authors."--Icuc2 (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

How should articles in Category:American novels be diffused? 18:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the below suggestion would solve the problems that all of us are facing.

Novels in the Category:American novels should be diffused into at least 2 subcategories from the following option:

Once the novel is diffused, the novel should be removed from Category:American novels.


  • Category:American novels becomes navigable
  • Novels will have more information on them with less categories
  • Maintenance of Category:American novels will be simpler
  • It will be easier to identify "new" articles for other categorization
  • If repopulated with all American novels would be a population of about 8880 articles


  • Novels in American novels, may not have readily apparent subcategories

Please feel free to add and modify this. Conversation should begin in the discussion section Sadads (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Whether or not to keep the article in the Supercategory?
As I see it, the way the category system works is in my opinion suboptimal--there should be an option to pull all the entries out of a category & its subcategories and display them, and then we wouldn't have this sort of problem. (I can't imagine it would be very difficult to program.) Until then, it has been the consistent practice throughout Wikipedia to remove articles from the main category when there are relevant subcategories--I don;t go out looking for this, but I do make such moves when I come across them. The argument here would have to be that this situation is different. I don't think it is--the same problems of selection and bias would apply to many similar categories. What I think we need is a VP discussion of getting a better system implemented overall. Until then, I think the proposal above makes a great deal of sense. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I just did an analysis of Category:American novels, and if we repopulate the category from the subcategories there will be (if we did it today) a population of 8880 articles. That would be very unmanagable, even more so than the original population, before I started being bold, of ~3500, Sadads (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this include science fiction, mystery, horror, and young adult fiction? I think those can all safely be pulled out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, but I looked at the whole population, excluding those populations ~ 7269 novels aren't in those categories. (If, I also did not repopulate all authors, we would be down to 3601 which is above where it was when I started diffusing it. But as Icuc points out below that really isn't as useful as we might think, too hard to trace it back to American novels.) Sadads (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't see the problem with having some large categories, but if there's really a genuine need to reduce all categories to bite-sized morsels, I'd suggest focusing on the periodization subcategories, which are the only ones that wouldn't engender huge arguments and enormous work trying to figure out what category novels belong in--and that's only if you adopt a simple system by dates rather than attempting to figure out what the "real" periods of American literature might be (a question literature professors have been arguing about for at least a century without much hope of consensus). If you are looking for small period categories you'd probably have to go down to the level of decades. It won't make for perfect slices every time, but at least its unarguable. Category:Films_by_decade might be used as an example; I imagine there are others if you poke around. The rationale for this is that if you are planning a true diffusion in which you would actually depopulate the parent category you would need at least one unarguable set of subcategories that would clearly contain every element of the no-longer-existing parent. I don't see this happening with genre, ethnicity, or the other suggested subcategories; it could work with "by author" but having a category with 2000 subcategories doesn't strike me as any great breakthrough. If you don't have at least one systematic set of categories there will likely be uncategorizable items.--Icuc2 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
That I could do, we would just need to cross reference Category:American novels with the sub categories of Category:Novels by decade or Category:Novels by century, I could probably write it in AWB so that I would just have to pull one big list and sort them that way. This is when a better categorization system would be very good. Sadads (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose this recategorization end for now until the categories are defined, posted, and clearly understood. In my view, the current method is causing quite a bit of disruption and make-work for those having to fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. WCCasey (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Abandon the category For my part I dislike this intensely. What is an "American novel"? A novel by an American? A novel published in America? A novel about America? A novel set in America? A novel by a non-American who wrote it in America? Recently Alice's Adventures in Wonderland retold in words of one syllable was recategorized as "American" evidently because the abridger was American. But the novel is most certainly English through and through. -- Evertype· 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was because it was in a "Novels" category and the infobox said that it is from the United States, Sadads (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The above comment is a good example of WP:DIB and supports the inaccuracies of infoboxes. More to the point, the following should be done:
  • Achieve consensus that the novels categories require alteration. To do so, the discussion should take place beyond a sparsely trafficed wikiproject.
  • If consensus is to alter the categories, then achieve consensus on replacement categories, with specific category definitions documented in appropriate locations.
  • If consensus has been achieved for the changes, and the changes have been defined, accepted, and documented, then implement the changes.
  • Discussion of recently created categories and their definition, such as Category:Novels set in the early national era United States, would be helpful to see. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Bowing to popular opinion, Migrating to different tasks, the recent AWB stuff has put a fair number of WP:Orphan tags on novel articles, I am going to make some author navboxes to give them some more interlinking,Sadads (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It would be handy if you showed us what such a navbox would look like. -- Evertype· 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion should be moved out of the RfC, I think. But to answer the above, it's not necessary to have a navbox, nor is it even necessary to have an infobox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I say again, this needs serious re-think what are the criteria for determining the "nationality" of a work? Is it the citizenship of the author? Is it the location of the author when the book was wriiten? Is it the location of the publishing house? (And if so, what is the "nationality" of a book published simultaneously in more than one country?) Is it the subject matter? This is the second time I have asked these questions, and your only response was that "the infobox said it was from the United States". What does from mean in this context? People have nationalities. Books do not. -- Evertype· 14:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The category American Novels existed when this discussion began, but I agree with Evertype that it's meaningless. Building new categorization schemes on top of it is equally pointless. WCCasey (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we also get rid of American literature and American poetry? It seems to me that if the books would be taught in an American lit course, then they could be categorized as American lit. I realize there are cases that show the limitations of the category, but I'm not sure we can get rid of "American novels" without also getting rid of the whole range of nation-based categories and nation-based articles: Category:Novels by country. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
WP Manual of Style directions on Novel Categories
I thought it might be useful for us to review the MOS guidelines, found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (novels)#Categories: "At a minimum, year, country and genre categories should be included." So country is expected, and although it doesn't define what is meant, I think it's clear for most books other than historical novels that this would imply the country of origin (not the country of setting). Perhaps we need to create a new RfC about that definition? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the American reference should be dropped from American novels. The problems arose from the disaggregation of Category:American novels. Although I agreed with moving out listings such as fantasy, horror, mystery, science fiction, and children's books, I didn't foresee eliminating those categories and replacing with disaggregated categories. When building classification systems, I find it easiest to move from general to specific. The best course of action would be to define the categories that the main category is being disaggregated into, then cross list before eliminating listings from the main category. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but that's not the issue I was addressing. I was referring to the problem of defining "American historical novels" and pointing out that following the MOS means that we categorize historical novels by their country of origin, so that American novels about Henry II are treated as American historical novels, and British novels about Thomas Jefferson are treated as British--even though it would seem illogical. If the category "American historical novels" is to remain parallel to "American sci-fi" and "American vampire novels", we need to look at country of origin and then ALSO use the "novels by setting" category. But people were discussing the difficulty of assigning books by nationality, and I wondered if we wanted to discuss changing the MOS to remove the "country" categorization altogether. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest using the novels by setting category, in addition to the American novel category, which makes it MoS compliant. It seems counterintuitive to define a novel not set in the United States as an American historical novel. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)