Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Characters - pets/animals

I tried to improve the page for Rip Van Winkle after re-reading it and I added a character section, but I was wondering if I should also add his dog to that section. Not a character/person, but he is referred to in a relatively anthropomorphic way - a dead metaphor perhaps, but still.Zigzig20s 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe - you could use a sub-section ===Animals=== for such an addition. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

New potential category inquiry

Hi. I'm working on the Uncategorized category Wikiproject. I'd like to create a subcategory of needed categories relating to this project, Category:Uncategorised books. You could refine it or alter it to be better suitable for project needs. I also posted this notice at WikiProject Books, since they would likely find it useful too. Just a humble suggestion. :) -Ebyabe 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite happy with the idea myself, particularly if it is populated either via {{uncategorized}} and a parameter setting or a specific clone of this template. Then people have a tendency to add them. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the folks at WikiProject Books pointed out that Category:Uncategorised books was deleted sometime ago, and Category:Books is used for that purpose. Which means not having to create a new category, but use an already existing one, and that's always nice. I guess I can start moving them to that category. Now where did I put that shovel... ;) -Ebyabe 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It was and I can't really see why if we have uncategories people, uncategorized places etc etc. Anyway for us you would use Category:Novels or Category:Short stories. The unfortunate aspect of using these is some are legitimately in these groups and we would go past these again and again whilst trying to do the "uncategorized" bit. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Current discussion to possibly allow plot articles

A deletion discussion for Plot of Les Miserables has led to a discussion of changing Wikipedia policy on plot-summary articles. Participation in the policy discussion would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not in the section "Policy on plot summaries: Aux armes! Aux armes!". Noroton 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on book cover images

I have been informed that the book cover image in the infobox is no longer considered a fair use candidate, being now classified as merely "decorative". Expect to receive notices of deletion for all images posted in infoboxes. Read the policy statement here and post comments on the talk page. Maybe this can be turned around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djdaedalus (talkcontribs)

It maybe safer to try and use the first edition cover for the Infobox on a novel, rather than the latest edition, since the first edition is probably no longer in print (also avoids the problem of having to update the cover each time a new edition comes out). A first edition cover surely would have more right to be seen as being of educational value to a article rather than being merely decorative. I notice that some articles are featuring many different covers for various issues and that could become a problem. Maybe we should have some rationale for the use of book covers to try and protect what contributions we make. Just my thoughts, but Kevinalewis would be the one to give us all the details on what is best to do. Boylo 00:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with all points much the same as Boylo. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think book covers are obviously fair use on articles about the books. There are 10 criteria:
  1. "No free equivalent." -- there is no free equivalent of a book cover.
  2. "Respect for commercial opportunities." -- the use of a book cover to illustrate the article does not diminish the commercial opportuninities of the publisher, on the contrary, it probably helps.
  3. (a) "Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article." -- Only one picture should be used except in very extenuating circumstances.
    (b) "Resolution/fidelity. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used." -- Low resolution images should always be used.
  4. "Previous publication. Non-free content has been published outside Wikipedia." -- We should note when images of a book cover are widely available.
  5. "Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." -- Book covers illustrate notable books, thus are encyclopedic.
  6. "Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy." -- yes, per above.
  7. "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." -- not an issue since we're talking about the use of the image in an article.
  8. "Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article." -- It would be good to come up with a detailed explanation, possibly citing external sources, that the cover of a book is a part of the book, and therefore relevant to a fuller understanding of the article. I'm sure we can find designers who state as much.
  9. "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace." -- This is reasonable, and should not be an issue. When adding improved rationale to articles we should also check for this.
  10. Image description page." -- We should credit the jacket designer as well as mention the publisher on every image description page.
Basically, I think we have a pretty ironclad case. If we come up with some guidelines on how best to rationalize and defend fair-use on book covers, we could then go through the categories and, in a couple of days, protect all these perfectly valid images from overly-zealous removal. Those users that are trying to reduce unnecessary fair use images are well-intentioned, but with detailed and vetted rationales we should be okay. --JayHenry 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe this has shed loads of merit. Do we have any ideas how best to make use of these ideas. Should these be incorporated on the "style guidlines2 or made into proforma biolerplate for basic example book types. More ideas please. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of some sort of proforma boilerplate. If we came up with the detailed rationale mentioned above, and then it was stored somewhere easily accessible where it could be copied and used as needed, I think that would be helpful. Silverthorn 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On the talk page for WP:NONFREE, User:Wikidemo says s/he is working on a template that would provide fair-use rationales for book covers. Perhaps we could organize a drive to make sure that all images tagged with {{bookcover}} have fair-use rationales. I think WP:NOVELS needs to come up with a statement defending the use of book covers in Wikipedia along the lines of JayHenry's example above, so that if someone proposes a stricter interpretation of WP:NONFREE or starts unilaterally deleting images we will be ready with a good defense. Also, does anyone know if it is possible to get the book covers tagged for deletion in Category:Disputed_non-free_images put into their own sub-category? I've been putting fair-use rationales on book covers I find there, but just finding them in that huge category takes ages. Bláthnaid 18:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like we should piggyback on Wikidemo's effort to have a really detailed explanation of fair use of book covers. I'm still learning how all this fair-use works, so we should perhaps seek the input of someone experienced in copyright on how best to word our rationale. A WikiProject Novels/Cover Images sub page could then offer a really detailed explanation of how to use the rationales, link to good examples, etc. We should also mention the cover image rationale page at the Template:Infobox book and we should let WikiProject Books know, because same issue for them. As for finding book covers in Category:Disputed_non-free_images, I believe it's User:BetacommandBot that does most of that tagging, we could ask User:Betacommand if it's possible to create that subcategory. But otherwise, we might just want to create the rationale and then do a tagging drive rather than trying to convince him to modify his bot. --JayHenry 19:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) As a participant of the various discussions going on at WP:NONFREE, I've come over here to comment on your situation. At this time, consensus would seem to agree that a single book cover used to identify a book is acceptable fair use as long as the article discusses the book in-depth and the proper fair-use rationales are given on the image page. However, the use of several different book covers inside a single article poses more of a problem, and you will need to justify their use in the context of specific critical commentary on those images, or else prune the extra images. I would also note that a separate fair-use rationale must be provided for each page which uses an image.
If you would like an example of a (non-template) fair use rationale, you can look at Image:Mendoza in Hollywood.jpg. Hopefully you guys can work with Wikidemo to create a nice template to use for book covers. Then once the template's finished, examples of its proper use can be provided to the applicable wikiprojects. As my particular interest is in Star Wars as well as certain newspaper comics, I hope to work up some fair-use examples for book covers for those areas as well. -- wacko2 15:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I think books always qualify as fairuse, I can think of three instances where the case is really strengthened 1) if there is critical commentary on the book. This includes anything beyond a plot summary, including themes, literary devices, etc. 2) if there is specific discussion of the image and 3) if the image is of a first edition which is then of additional historical interest. I'll contact Wikidemo now to begin coordination. --JayHenry 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikidemo left the following response regarding the templates. --JayHenry 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Happy to help. My templates aren't ready for prime time yet. It's clear to me that I will have to improve and reorganize them so that they are strictly "helper" applications that allow editors to fill in some information specifying the details of the image and inmage use, then based on that produce pieces of suggested rationale language to go in the officially sanctioned master template, {{Non-free media rationale}}, discussed at WP:FURG#Template. You would then take a close look at what the template offers, give some thought as to whether that truly describes the situation, modify if necessary, then save. What should be saved on the image file is not my template or any non-standard template, or any actively transcluded boilerplate language, but simply the master template with its various fields filled in.
That may take a few days and I know images are being deleted in the meanwhile. I would advise people to do their best in the meanwhile, and if they're sure the images are appropriate but simply having trouble with the rationale, download the disputed images so they can re-upload them once they have a good rationale. That is something you should put in your instructions anyway; anybody uploading an image should leave a copy for safekeeping on their hard drive in case it gets inadvertently deleted. One thing that would be a huge help to me is if you can gather some of the rationales that you think are well written and appropriate, and illustrate the span of different legitimate circumstances in which the images appear. So I can decide which parameters to include, what is nearly always the same and what are the things that routinely change from case to case? How often might you know who the individual artist is who designs a book cover, for instance? Is the copyright always held by the publisher, or does the author or cover artist (or someone else) sometimes hold it? What are the usual sources for the images -- scans? Publisher websites? I see there is a preference for first editions; what are the various other options for editions and how would you describe different editions? Are there common improper situations you come across that I should incorporate as warnings for people to avoid (you can see Durin and I had some heated words about just how sternly people should be warned to avoid inappropriate use)? Based on those kinds of things I can develop better templates.
In my own dry run I found that I could use templates to add rationales at the rate of about 2 minutes each, and that's doing it the right way, looking very closely on a case-by-case basis with as much care as I would have spent typing the rationale out from scratch. With a helper application that would open the windows up for me without my having to click and cut and paste, I could probably do it in a minute each. I'm not enough of a Firefox or php whiz to do that but perhaps someone is -- the image deletion bots are at that level of sophistication and maybe someone else working on the project is willing to help once we have good templates. But even at two minutes each that would mean 1,000 minutes for 500 disputed templates. Yes, a lot of work but one person could easily keep up with the nightly deletion tags and even get ahead of them so that eventually they aren't getting tagged at all.
You may find, incidentally, that some of the book cover images you come across while trying to fix the rationales are truly not appropriate fair use candidates. When I was investigating the record albums, perhaps 10-20% of the images simply should not have been there or were too complicated for me to fix and remove the tag in good faith. Also, be aware that policies are changing and some of the change is coming directly from the Wikimedia Foundation. Book cover images are fine as per present policy. But it is possible that at some time in the future the Foundation may simply decide that copyrighted book cover images should not be associated with book articles in that way, and delete them all. User:Wikidemo 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I pointed Wikidemo at a couple fair use rationales I'd done, and heard back just now.[1] Wikidemo essentially says there is little that a new template can accomplish right now to automate things, especially if we don't know what level of detail will be needed to satisfy requirements. Aside from offering to ask this question (and I don't know how to answer that, especially since Wikidemo has had a bit of a dust-up today over an album cover fair use template), he or she suggests that we just get on with adding rationales as we've been doing. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 09:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should create a task force/group of volenteers to add the fair use criteria to all the images of book covers we use. There's a template availible and its not that hard - only took me ten minutes yesterday to do it for all the images I had uploaded so far. Million_Moments 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

List of BetacommandBot's {{bookcover}} tags

If anybody wants to add fair-use rationales to book covers that have been tagged for deletion, there is a list of images that BetacommandBot tagged here. There are about 400 images listed. I think they are due for deletion by 18 July. Every suitable image on the list up to (not including) those beginning with the letter H have been given a rationale. I would highly recommend spending some time adding rationales, it's lots of fun ... honestly ... Bláthnaid 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Important: If you add a rational, remove the deletion tag. Otherwise, it'll be deleted anyway. Doceirias 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I just did all the ones beginning with the letter H... Tedium is good for the soul I suppose. Kweeket 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a general comment, the fact the rules regarding images appear to have changed again -- and also contradict the existing wording on the "bookcover" template that still says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question", full stop (I just checked) is one of the reasons I no longer actively participate in Wikipedia. My talk page has been absolutely flooded with bot messages regarding images that had perfectly fine rationales when I uploaded them and I just don't have the time to deal with this sort of thing. What really annoys me is the people (specifically the bot programmers) are all high and mighty sending out automated messages regarding hundreds and hundreds of images, but do you think they'd get off their butts to actually Be Bold and make the corrections themselves? Nooooooo ... I still expect to see images banned utterly from Wikipedia before too long, anyway. Good god, another 2 appeared while I was leaving this message, alone. To hell with this place. 23skidoo 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand, there is no appreciation of the amount of work that is being trashed by these deletionists. I have "just" been able to keep up with responding to this pressure for FUR's. I understand their aims but disagree about the methods used. Basically anyone who gets hold of an automated tool seems to be able to swing the day on any dispute if their change (particularly deletions) are easily definable. Hold do they expect the FURs to be added when the editors who added them are often long gone or have contributed so many images that such a revisit exercise to so daunting as to put of the best of us. Oh dear I am almost putting myself off as I discuss the issue. They are more than likely to be shooting a non existant target with media item covers anyway, so many publishers and author, musicians and film makers will be more than happy to have this material used. Oh well. Rant over (for now) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the amount of images tagged is incredibly daunting. The "proposed for deletion" tags arrive in so many drips to so many user pages, it is incredibly hard for the casual editor to work out what in the world is going on. However it now seems that a template we can use is on the way (thanks!), so if we as a Wikiproject get together and ask the admins to pause deleting book covers until a certain date while we add rationales, remove book covers from galleries, etc, we can get the problem under control. Wikipedia won't go under if all these images without rationales are not deleted this week. And more importantly it will let valuable editors like you guys get on with your contributions. Bláthnaid 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
My talk page has become utterly useless because of the bots and zealots (those who are manually leaving messages galore). I have taken some small comfort in seeing that a couple of these guys have actually been blocked for talk page spamming. Too bad the bot owners can't be spanked as well. For my part, I no longer care and have in fact (and I say this with all due respect to the fine folks here for whom this may be seen as a negative) begun advocating the in toto removal of images from Wikipedia. Full stop. Let them start over again once they've made up their minds on the policy (I fully expect the current one to be changed within the month). I am not even bothering to pay attention to the bot warnings, so if images I've uploaded disappear (including book covers), so be it. For the record no one has yet given me one single bit of proof that Wikipedia has ever in its history been sued for image copyright, or that it is even in any remotely dangerous position with respect to this. I do however wish to thank those who have been "rescuing" book images, including some of mine. You have a thankless task ahead of you -- best of luck and I hope you don't have to do it all over again before Christmas. 23skidoo 02:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What's happened to Matter?

The page for Matter (Iain M Banks' next Culture novel due Feb 2008) has been changed to redirect you to The Steep Approach to Garbadale. I've been monitoring the page for news on the next novel and just noticed this.

Seems and over zealous editor fell into the trap Iain had set for our internet researchers.! Situation restored and updated. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing image purge of 2007

In relation to the discussion above; in an attempt to keep up with the IFD's, Jogers and I have been working on a way to keep an updated list of various categories of images. For the book covers, he's created this list Disputed book cover images which should be updated on a regular basis. If this is helpful to this project, I'd suggest that you add it to the Template:WikiProject Novels announcements or similar "Things to do" notifications. Comments, questions, etc, can be left on my user page - and the positive/constructive ones are always welcome ;) SkierRMH 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently the reference above appears to point to Film related image rather than books. Nice idea, why not create it as a project subpage. Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed book cover images would answer I think. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Afd

People here might be interested in the AfD discussion on Nanotechnology in fictionDGG (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My god will the deletion fetish never STOP???

Now that God, er, Jimbo Wales has proclaimed that episode articles that don't include reams of sources should be speedy deleted (this posting which has apparently led to this TV episode going to AFD, expect a mass nomination of books and novels in the near future. Believe it. 23skidoo 02:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Images tagged for deletion

Betacommand posted on WP:VPP about providing WikiProjects with notices of images tagged for deletion that fall under their scope. I've taken the liberty of asking him/her to give this project notices about images tagged for deletion from articles with the {{NovelsWikiProject}} template on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed book cover images. --Bláthnaid 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Novel nominated for AFD

A novel in the Animorphs series of books has been nominated for AFD here. Remember successful deletions of this nature create precedent that could lead to other similar deletions. 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Deptford Mice

The articles about this series of novels are currently in a very bad state. Actually, I found Fleabee's Fortune on the backlog of the Notability wikiproject, because that article had been tagged with the "importance" tag since last December. But I realized that there's a whole series of articles on books by this author - see the template at the bottom - which all share the same problem.

All the articles do not establish notability, see the WP:BK guideline: They do not cite any independent coverage about the books. Rather, they are simply plot summaries (cf. WP:NOT#PLOT). In the current state, all of them might well be candidates for deletion.

I'm posting this here because I want to suggest a different way of dealing with these articles: If some independent sourecs can be found which say something nontrivial about this book series (in-depth reviews, awards, or the like), it might be best to merge all these articles into one. They are all very short currently, so that should be possible. This article should give a brief summary of the book's contents, and then some out-of-universe content which shows why these books (as a series) are notable.

I replaced the tag on Fleabee's Fortune with {{notability}} for now, and left the other articles as they are, but as I said, the problem seems to be more general than just this one article. --B. Wolterding 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The entire plot section of the article on Rushdie's famous novel, Midnight's Children was a direct and literal copy from the description in Spark Notes, available online, & actually cited and linked on the face of the article. Some of the other sections look coped from similar sources. The identified material has been removed, and the person inserting it warned; I believe it to have been an honest mistake by an editor not realising that it violates WP:Copyright. It would be useful if people here were to be aware of this possibility--a number of people have edited the article without noticing. (It wasn't me who found it, either, but another editor , one using an IP address.) DGG (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Urgent portal maintenance needed

Portal:Literature is in urgent need of new content if it is not to loose featured portal status... Gralo 00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Short story up for AFD

A published Starcraft short story is up for AFD here. Those in the short story task force may wish to chime in on this, or work on the article in question to bring it up to acceptable standard. As I said in the novel AFD heads-up, above, the more successful AFDs there are, the more precedent against such articles. (I know nothing about this short story, so it may not legitimately be notable enough for its own article; this is just a heads-up). 23skidoo 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

status: keptDGG (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The entire themes section of the article on Adam Bede was a direct and literal copy from the account in Gradesaver, available online, & actually cited and linked on the face of the article. Much of the character section was similarly copied. identified material has been removed, and the person inserting it warned. Again, number of people have edited the article without noticing. I found this one myself, and intend to continue looking from time to time. There is a characteristic writing style in study guides such as these, presumably designed to impress teachers when submitted as essays. Only the most careless of teachers would be deceived when the material is used without modification--and it looks like WP is about as careless as any. The material has been there for months. I urge people in this project to check the articles they are working on. DGG (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent catch DGG. It's so disappointing that people have done this. I'll be going through my watchlist to check for this over the weekend. --JayHenry 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Trek novel up for AFD

The Star Trek novel My Enemy, My Ally is currently up for AFD, and has been since Friday. As of Sunday night it looks like 2 delete votes and 2 comments without votes, which probably means it'll be relisted as no consensus. 23skidoo 04:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Since it's now a redlink, I guess that means the article was deleted. I'm concerned about the precedent that might be setting. I checked the AFD archive and the editor who deleted it said there's no prejudice against recreating, but I'm concerned the article was killed without really giving it a chance to be expanded properly. 23skidoo 00:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a healthy precident at all, particularly in that we have no idea now what "was" there and have no basedline on which to build! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It was basically a synopsis of the book, but it wouldn't have taken much to trim the plot outline, add a paragraph about the book publishing history, and add other templates, etc. The concern I have is that if an AFD on an undeniably notable series like Star Trek can sneak through, what does that mean for the long-term survival of articles such as The Nightmare of Black Island (a Doctor Who novel chosen at random), or any of the Simon Templar novel articles I created, many of which are still stubs? 23skidoo 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Be an Interplanetary Spy

I originally started the Be an Interplanetary Spy article, and I'm planning to expand it; but I wanted to get advice before I find I put too much work into it (I am still relatively new after all).

Be an Interplanetary Spy was a 12 book series with each book having its own individually different titles, stories and characters, so should I follow a format similar to a more well known work like Xanth (with the individual book titles at the bottom as links to separate articles or stubs about each book)? Should I put together summaries that are placed into the main series article? Should I just put a list of titles with no explanations at all? (which would seem a shame - but I see that most of the Choose Your Own Adventure article is just a list of titles).

Anyway, I was just curious. The Be an Interplanetary Spy series is nearly 15 years old now, but it was found in all major bookstores right next to Choose Your Own Adventure. At the very least, I thought it was worth noting in Wiki so that people researching Choose Your Own Adventure could remember or otherwise be aware of this cousin.

Of course, I realize many reading this are slobbering at the mouth to "FAST DELETE!!!", but that's partially why I'm asking. I'm fine if people want to later edit or add to make the article better, but I don't want to put the time into building the article if the entire thing is just going to be thrown into the garbage on a whim without a care. It will be like I did absolutely nothing in that case; well, nothing except waste my time.

What I would do would be to write up the series article with summaries and series reception, notability, review, etc all referenced as far as possible. Only as the article grows with more detail available for each title break out the titles into individual articles. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

One of this project's Good Articles, A Series of Unfortunate Events, has been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request feedback on guidelines

I would like to have the feedback of active wikiproject members on the following. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been rewritten some time ago, but this appears to have been done without substantial input from editors who write about fiction.

Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to be a description of common practice. At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those from most novels.

This does not reflect actual practice, because Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Now there's no need for alarm, because to my knowledge, nobody is actually deleting any of this. However, it would be prudent to reword and update the aforementioned guidelines to accurately reflect how, and on which aspects, articles on fiction are written.

Please feel free to update the guidelines as needed, or direct your feedback to their respective talk pages. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also you should include WP:BK (on books) in preference to WP:FICT. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD) — 27 August

One of the books in the Dark-Hunter Series is currently # 8 in the New York Times hardcover fiction bestseller list. Dammit, Wikipedia needs more articles about a "former Sumerian god, now a casino owner" :p Bláthnaid 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a rushed little affair!. I don't know the articles but I would generally council more considered writing to head off this type of deletionist approaches. Referencing, wikify the article make use of a style and pattern guidelines, ensure notability statements are in articles. etc.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Dark-Hunter Series has been undeleted and tidied up. Hopefully a knowledgeable person will be able to expand it. Bláthnaid 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Honoré de Balzac

Hello everyone. I've been working to get the bio page of Honoré de Balzac up to FA status. It's very close, but I'd like one or two more peer reviews before we submit it. If you have a bit of time (I expect copyediting and maybe suggestions on the lead are all we need), please visit the WP:BIOPR page and share your thoughts. Thanks in advance. — Scartol · Talk 13:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

I appreciate what you are trying to do here but the proposer is right there is "nothing" the assert notability here on these articles - first defence here is to correct this. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Shall I stop posting notifications to this WikiProject? If so, I will note that at User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals. Understand, I am not in a position to improve these articles myself — I am acting in the capacity of messenger. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ceyockey brings up an interesting point. I think notifying the project of AFD and PROD situations is very helpful, especially if there are members who don't necessarily troll the AFD/PROD pages (especially PROD which is often forgotten about - I just check AFD myself) and who might be in a position to rescue/improve the articles or provide compelling arguments in favor of keeping. (Or even deleting, let's be fair). I'd like to propose the creation of a Wikiproject Novels talk page where such AFD notifications can be placed, rather than placing them in the midst of all the othe varied discussions here. Such page could also be used with regards to book cover images marked for deletion (maybe the fair use bots can be programmed to post notices there). Thoughts? 23skidoo 15:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea! Something like an "Article challenges" (name ideas please) page or some such for us to watch, add to and assist with page defences (if appropriate of course). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I also like this idea. It's hard to find books proposed for deletion in Category:Proposed deletion unless they actually have (book) or (novel) in the title. Would something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Challenged novel articles be a good title? With regards to book covers, I've asked User:Betacommand twice to put notification of disputed images on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed book cover images, but s/he doesn't seem to be doing that. Bláthnaid 20:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think using a word like "challenged" is a bit too subtle. I think it should be something like "Articles-Images in danger of deletion" or "Articles under AFD/PROD review". Something that says it like it is. Additional: As noted below, one PROD'd novel article has already been deleted, despite the best efforts of Kevinalewis to rescue it. The reason given for deletion is that the PROD nomination itself was never challenged. If we do create a new page, there should be directions given as to how to respond to PROD and AFD. For example, the PROD could have been contested and sent to AFD and there's also a tag (I forget what it's called) that can be placed on pages in the event of someone making a snap PROD nomination (I've seen this happen within minutes of an article being created). 23skidoo 01:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think I can see what you are getting at. So unless anyone objects what I propose would be to establish a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Articles-Images in danger of deletion it seems more inclusive. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed book cover images should then redirect to a specific section of this, and maybe a Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed novel articles might be a redirect to an article section. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. If things get a bit crowded by having both book and image issues in one spot, we can perhaps split them into separate pages later. That said, we don't see that many book articles sent to AFD/PROD, so unless someone goes on a hunt, I don't see that becoming an issue. 23skidoo 12:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Having everything on one page would be useful. Bláthnaid 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


In the meantime, while discussion of the new page ensues ...

  • 12 September 2007 - expires 17 September
    • Songs of Power (PROD by User:B. Wolterding; "Songs of Power is a novel by Hilari Bell.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Too late, that one's gone already, even though Kevin appears to have had put some work into trying to rescue it. The reason given was that the PROD nomination itself was never challeneged. 23skidoo 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Any article prodded can be recreated without needing to ask permission. --WP:PROD. Just write a good one. Obviously, whoever prodded it before will be on the watch, so make sure its really a better article, or it will certainly be sent to AfD. DGG (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess my point on this is that, to most folks, any work done of the article has to be done again. As an admin, I can see the deleted efforts and can tell that there was some work done in hopes of rescuing the thing, but because it seemed no one placed a note regarding same to the PROD page -- or went to the next step and challenged it to AFD -- it was automatically deleted (I don't know if the account that deleted the article was an actual person or a bot). I have never recreated a PROD'd article after deletion under the relatively new rules, so I don't know if it's actually within my admin authority to countermand the completed PROD process. This is different than recreating an article from scratch which, as you say, can be done anytime, unless a "protect against recreation" has been implimented. 23skidoo 12:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Go Ask Alice"

well after reading the information i found out about go as alice i was quite disappointed although i had my own suspicions as to wether or not this diary was actually real my reasons for this are because a lot of her experiences with drugs seem "fake" and over-reaching....for an elaborate description of the effects of drugs it just seemed all too fake on top of that a 15 year old can be mature but not quite that mature but still i loved this book it was the most amazing book i have ever read besides crank...i cried and by the end of the book she seemed to have matured quite a bit and learned very important lessons that most teenagers choose to ignore i say this only because i myself am a 16 year old teenager and from my own experiences i think i should write a book too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Not quite sure what article improvement point you are trying to make here. If the article is broke fix it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that this is just someone that read Go Ask Alice in school and has now decided to go and write their own memoir; with no real bearing on the Novels WikiProject. Gizzakk 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Probably a newbie who just clicked on the first link he/she saw on the article's talk page. 23skidoo 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Is there a searchable online database (besides Amazon) where I can type an author and find all the books they've written? BTW, if there is such an animal, would y'all consider a "Resource page"? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Library of Congress doesn't miss much: Library of Congress catalog and neither does | WorldCat, but of course you can't buy those books. If you're looking to buy and can't find it on, is probably your best bet. --JayHenry 01:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No, not to buy. Just to be able to list significant ones on an author's article. I don't like Amazon for many reasons, but one of them is because I have to click on each book to get any useful information for an author. I'll take a look at Worldcat and LOC. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have more ideas about a resources page. Might be good to go beyond what this editor had in mind, i.e. general reference locations and tools for narrative article editing. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we already have the guidelines pages, I would suggest adding something that links to sites such as Amazon and Alibris, as well as something like the New York Times bestsellers lists; a decent site for book covers would probably be worthwhile as well, however it seems that there has been more than a little drama concerning the fair use of such images as of late. Gizzakk 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have added such a page and put on a few fairly obvious things and locations. Would others be able to augment this with suitable information. Obviously this shouldn't go mad with silly links, but just the "best" would be what we work for on this reference point. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Automated Lists

I havn't been around for a good while, but back when I was pretty active, there were several extensive automated lists of articles that needed specific things, such as infoboxes or categorization; I was just wondering if whoever was producing these lists is still around, or if there would be someone else that felt like picking up the mantle; they make it much easier to go and poke around and help out a bit without getting neck-deep into starting a brand new article. Gizzakk 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For examples of automation that I've run across recently see User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals#WikiProjects with "fully automated" solutions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The link you provided seems to deal with how to tag articles so that projects with automated lists could be notified of a pending AfD through the bot they use; thanks though. Gizzakk 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
True - there are references to two bot implementation examples. What automation method did Eagle implement? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I have no idea; I checked the old lists and couldn't find a mention of it, but if you went and checked his edit logs you could probably find it. Gizzakk 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On this topic, it seems that Eagle, the guy that used to manage the automated lists is on a Wikibreak, so this might be a futile effort on my part. Gizzakk 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the automation being referred to here? Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/NovelsInCompleteInfobox --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There were four separate worklists, all of which are under automated worklists on the WikiProject Novels directory template, which is on the top right hand side of all the WikiProject's pages; including this one. All four were maintained by Eagle_101, but at the current time they are empty. Gizzakk 07:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made some efforts over the months to contact Eagle with a view to getting these re-run, but to no avail. We were starting to talk about how to make his Bot configurable by others, i.e. running independent to his involvement. But again he then just went quiet on me. It would be very helpful if someone could assist in providing a replacement engine to run these and/or similar analyses. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass removal of short story-related category tags

Debate moved over to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Crime task force#Mass removal of short story-related category tags by :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about moves and original research in quite a few literature-related articles

Hello. I'm copying this message I wrote to Mike Klassen here, as it relates to quite a few literature-related articles, and I think it might be useful to invite comments from other editors. Perhaps the elements of the articles I'm pointing to aren't that contentious, but it'd be good to hear what others think.

I see that you've moved a load of articles to the (fiction) form--Narrator, Plot (narrative), Exposition and a few others. While I understand your desire for consistency, I'm not sure they have been really thought through from the POV of a wikipedia user - they seem, rather, to be serving your exposition of your own ideas about writing. What I mean is, for example, Plot (narrative) is unambiguous, whereas plot (fiction) may refer to a secret plan that is not real (like a fictional version of the Gunpowder 'plot', off the top of my head). Narrator doesn't require a disambiguation. Same goes for First-person narrative (fiction), Third-person narrative (fiction), Unreliable narrator (fiction) You've organised Fiction into your own categories, though I'm not aware of anyone else in the scholarly community using these; they seem very idiosyncratic, and unsourced in every case, yet they're appearing on almost all of these pages; this makes it seem like an act of self-promotion, rather than detailing existing knowledge. It makes an appearance in Dramatic structure, Setting (fiction), Story arc, Plot hole, Plot device, Theme (literature), Style (fiction), Fiction writing... really, I didn't imagine the list would get that long when I began it! Point of view (literature) was there to distinguish it from cinematic POV, which is also fictional, so your move makes it less precise and increases the potential for confusion. Imagery isn't only found in fiction. The only one that appears to have originated as (fiction) is Scene (fiction), for which that designation is the least appropriate (it being a specifically dramatic term that is used for other forms metaphorically at best). I see that I'm not the only one to have been concerned by the general tenor of many of these changes. I understand that you have a particular point of view and that your contributions aim to assist fledgling writers (I presume), but I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for this. Can I reiterate the plea that you cite other sources than your own web article. There is a great deal to object to in that scheme, but this isn't a collective blog and our job as editors isn't to debate these things, but rather to reference already-existing debates beyond this project. I see that you've tried to offer a caveat on most of the articles to the effect that 'the debate is on-going', which is certainly a step in the right direction, but it needs to be cited and not original research. Please don't misunderstand me--I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong or to convince you to abandon your beliefs, nor, indeed, to discourage you from contributing (which would be the worst outcome); but the principles of the project are there for a reason and the only integrity we have is in a strict adherence to them. Only today I saw Wikipedia mocked on The Daily Show (we get it a day later) for its unreliability. All I'm asking is that if you want to use this scheme, please cite scholarly works that substantiate it. I don't feel its appropriate for me to go straight to a request to have the pages moved back, as that doesn't give you an opportunity to present your reasoning. Instead, please take a fresh look at the project you're pursuing overall and try to assess it objectively. I'm going to copy this to some of the talk pages, as I think the issues affect so many articles that its best to initiate a debate. Regards, DionysosProteus 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting debate, it will be more interesting to see how it turns out. A number of these topics are amenable to fiction or non-fiction. So the motivation for the move could be misguided or the editor might be wanting to make way for a "non-fiction" treatment of the same topic. However I can see little sight of that currently. On the other side the aspect of fiction / non-fiction is perhaps not sufficiently treated in the base articles for someone to avoid making the "mistake" that may be being made. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of the move, page moves that are even potentially controversial must be discussed first. The discussion should be carried out on the article talk page, and, optionally, listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves--which also gives the procedure. Moving this many impotant pages is particularly problematic. Unless there is consensus to move, the moves must be reverted. DGG (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
On balance I agree - is anyone here able to do this - I don't have the access (i.e. admin) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks as though someone has "righted the wrong" :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Resolved: :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Plausible fiction

-4 September 2007-(Interested in Mystery/Fiction): I would like to see a category for a genre-type that I refer to as "Plausible Fiction[[2]]." Plausible fiction is a genre-type that I attach to my work Code of the Sphinx© [[3]],[4]. The genre-type[[5]], I believe, is marked by an Author's use of facts based on actual research and reference[[6]],[7]. However, the milieu[[8]]: A time-frame of which can only be observed for past events (i.e., Zeitgeist)[[9]], in which the Author sets his novel, is or may be, entirely fictional. An Author may use this method in order to perhaps postulate a theory, such as in Dan Brown's[[10]], "The Da Vinci Code [[11]]." Respectfully,
N.L. Ross 18:06 [[12]]

What do other think of this one! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that this is a widely accepted genre name; the concept may be considered a facet of literature, but a search for "Plausible Fiction" yields only 1700 searches, and quite a few from the first ten pages have nothing to do with a genre. In my searching I have yet to see a scholarly source written on it, which is something that defines a genre for me. Can anyone else find anything notable about it? María (críticame) 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it sounds kind of self-serving. : / María (críticame) 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite right, Yllo—this is a complete nonsense genre. The literary equivalent of WP:FRINGE. And of course such books have always existed! There is nothing new or interesting about an author that does research (nor is there anything "plausible" about the works of Dan Brown). When such works are set in the present they are literary realism; in the past they are historical fiction. --JayHenry 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Old Man and the Sea

The Old Man and the Sea has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.