Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 7

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Portal:Arts for featured portal consideration

I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Book censorship

I have created the well overdue Book censorship article and Category:Book censorship. I split the content from List of books banned by governments of all places. I would like the experts here to expand it. The Censorship article could also do with more than my insipid summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1966 and All That (book)

The article 1966 and All That (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, non-notable book fails WP:NBOOKS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I'm not the editor who added the prod tag. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel

We need a few book knowledgable people at this article. Certain editors are claiming that one can't cite a claim that a book was on The New York Times Best Seller list to The New York Times itself because that would be a primary source. They are grasping at straws to exclude a New Age metaphysical viewpoint simply because it is a New Age metaphysical viewpoint. Clearly, there are mainstream New Age books and magazine, which populate the appropriate sections in mainstream bookstores. The same editors are attempting to exclude the use of a New Age magazine carried in WHSmith across UK, Canada, and Australia and carried in 700 Barnes & Nobles in the US. This isn't right! Yworo (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a BLP article. For the sentence In 1988, Siegel's Love, Medicine & Miracles ranked #9 on The New York Times Best Seller list list of hardcover nonfiction books, the NYT is a primary source. i.e no other secondary source has drawn attention to him being ranked 9th. WP:BLP Policy: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source but you propose basing article content solely on the primary source of the information. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources are available which confirm the book's log-term presence on the NY Times bestseller list [1], [2], [3]. A sentence can be rewritten with relevant sources added. The larger issue, per Yworo, is the proposed deletion of the biography, which began with the claim that there was no significant coverage by reliable sources. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't appear to even be part of this wikiproject and is outside of its scope. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The New York Times is a secondary source. The data that they gather and compile into the list is the "primary source material". maclean (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The list itself is primary source. See Wikipedia:RSN#Bernie_Siegel_-_Primary_Sources. Whilst in itself this mention based on a primary source is not an issue, the article is almost entirely based off primary sources which for a Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY BLP article is a bad state to be in, BLP primary sources policy: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Quality scale for The Sugar Girls

Would someone mind having a look at The Sugar Girls and assessing re the quality scale? Also, it is up for a DYK nomination if anyone has thoughts on that? Best wishes, Dwab3 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I assessed it as a 'C' class. It has significant content and a defined structure.To improve it to B-class continue to develop it as more sources become available. maclean (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry

I need help filling in a book infobox. I need to us the right edition, but when I use Google Books to find the most recent edition I am bombarded with a 101 different versions, I don't know which one to choose for the infobox. They all have different publishers etc.. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't need an infobox. Many articles don't. Span (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Template confusion

There are two very similarly named templates, distinguished only by case:

I propose the following in order to reduce any confusion:

  1. Move Template:WPBOOKS to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Navbar
  2. Update all existing transclusions of Template:WPBOOKS to bypass the redirect just created
  3. Make Template:WPBOOKS redirect to Template:WikiProject Books

If people are happy with the above, I will do the necessary. What do you think? --Jameboy (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. This looks reasonable and would be a benefit to the project organization. maclean (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No further responses received after 2 weeks, therefore I have gone ahead and completed the above. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Fry's "Moab is my washpot"

Article says no reference is given, but in my copy at the front it says "book of D verse 10 chapter 11" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.38.110 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added some refs to the article.[4] If you would like to improve the article, I can email the references noted.

Categories vs bibliographies for books

The category structure at Category:Books by topic needs discussion. There is an extensive (deep) hierarchy of categories many of which have only a few pages. If you drill down though the hierarchy starting from Category:Books by topic you will find it a bit of a wasteland. Looking at Category:History books about countries as an example there is a whole stack of underpopulated categories. Some, such as for the US and UK, are well populated, but even these are of little use to readers. You know - Those Who We Are Here To Serve!

I suggest that a large number of Category:Books by topic subcategories should be replaced with bibliographical articles. There is a burgeoning selection of bibliographies already being developed. See Category:Bibliographies by subject. Categories are not suited to the sort diving up books in this manner. A bibliography on the other hand is an ideal place for these pages. A bibliography give far greater amounts of information than a category ever could. As well as links to an article on individual books and article (list) can be broken down into topic section, the ISBN numbers will give links to libraries etc, and of course the date, author, title, publisher info is there to see.

Here is a an example of a bibliography that I quite like: Bibliography of Australian history. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose The category system is separate and unrelated to the list system. Removing categories does not improve the project.Curb Chain (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes but one or the other, or both, should be used to benefit readers. I am positing that in this case actual bibliographies (which are more than mere lists) are more beneficial. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to creating bibliographies list-articles, but they don't need to be created at the detriment of the category-system. Wikipedia's category system is meant to organize articles of related topics and its contents are subject to Wikipedia:Notability. The contents of the bibliography-list is guided more by verifiability and comprehensiveness. maclean (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I am keen on categories but the whole Category:Books by topic is over-categorisation to the detriment of the category-system. Also, I don't think we should equate bibliographies directly with WP lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: though subcategories of Category:Books by topic should be periodically checked for balance and re-balanced if needed, they are more useful then bibliographies, so choosing between them I would choose categories. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral I think bibliographies should be created and would be beneficial to wikipedia, but I also think categories serve a purpose and are necessary to wikipedia. I think we should have both, but the categories needs to be cleaned up. I suggest that categories need to first be sub-categorized by genre, and then sub/sub categorized by topic. How do other users feel about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoodlechef (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Partial oppose: categories should not be replaced by bibliographical articles rather bibliographical articles should be created separately. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I'd rather see the Category:Books by topic hierarchy cleaned up. My suggestion is categorize books using the Dewey Decimal hierarchy (according to subject, sans the decimals). The total anarchy approach to creating topics nested under this top-level category is over-categorization at its worst. By adopting the Dewey system, it would provide a systematic approach that would at least be familiar to readers in the English-speaking world. Articles in WP have notability standards, I don't understand why Categories don't have a similar approach. I don't see the value added by Bibliography articles versus the current topic randomness.OttawaAC (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • comment I think categories should be retained, but I agree it is a bit of a mess. There are right now 100 top-level categories that are either in Category:Books by topic or Category:Non-fiction books but not both; even when there is a ton of overlap between the two (I would guess about 80 *should* be in both - ie. they are both non-fiction and topically-based). Since we already have a top-level division of fiction and non-fiction, I wonder if we couldn't create a subset Category:Non-fiction books by topic, which would sit under both Category:Books by topic and Category:Non-fiction books, and move most of the topics in the parents to this child, which would leave only cats that aren't non-fiction in Category:Books by topic. Otherwise, it's a bit of a mess - you might be looking for something in one and not see it, even if that category exists in the other. --KarlB (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List of self-publishing companies

After several discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard involving self-published sources, we've created:

Editors are welcomed to help expand and improve both of these. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

List of ISBN codes for publishers

Hi, Are you guys aware of List of group-1 ISBN publisher codes? I am not sure where that information came from and how reliable it is.

Anyway, does anyone here know of reliable online lists that map publisher names to the fragment of digits in the International Standard Book Number (and vice versa)? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a list linked from Open Library here; I know there are various other lists integrated into software (the Heritage LMS pre-populates the publisher field from ISBNs) but I don't know where they're populated from or whether there's a paid API somewhere.
In general, I'm not sure our ISBN lists are really worth including - they're only marginally useful as human-readable entries, since it's unlikely anyone is going to manually look the code up against a table rather than simply search for it and find out that way; and they're almost impossible to complete at the lower end, with a potential pool of half a million entries, none of which are likely to be formally documented anywhere. It's a magnet for OR and for linkspamming to minor self-publishing houses. I'm tempted to list them for deletion and refer the "top" entries back to the main ISBN page, though that also needs a comprehensive rewrite! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography for Deletion?

Dan Savage bibliography has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bookbinding - British Library collaboration

Hi!

I've recently started work as the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library; this is a full-time position working within the BL and aiming to help support collaboration between the institutional community and the Wikimedia community. I've been looking at topics where a) the BL has a lot to offer the community, and b) there's a strong desire to work with editors.

I've just been meeting with the curator here responsible for bookbindings; compared to some other subjects, this is relatively underrepresented on Wikipedia (and the internet in general), and she's very keen to help improve our coverage. I'm currently looking at getting a "priority list" of key topics together, and identifying where the significant gaps in our content are. There are at most a hundred articles on binding, many of which are stubs - and some fairly important topics, such as Islamic bookcover, are missing entirely, so there's plenty of opportunity for editors to find interesting work!

The BL has had good experiences working with Wikipedians in the past, and can offer various kinds of support - images of example bindings from the collection, advice on selecting sources (and help in tracking down articles etc.), and expert review of articles. If anyone is interested, please do get in touch to discuss what I can do to help you! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a worthwhile effort. You are correct about the need for better coverage. I hope the experts at the British Library are able to contribute. maclean (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

should we make a Wimpy Kid task force?Greg Heffley 20:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You can create one if there are multiple editors seeking better organization on those articles. Are there any other editors working on those articles? maclean (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Their must be. Lemme checkGreg Heffley 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Recreating a deleted article

I was considering creating an article this morning on the book Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere, however I noticed that an article on the topic was deleted a year or two ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere: An Illustrated Introduction. I think it could merit revisiting; several sources are available ([5][6][7][8][9][10][11] are a few examples) which evidence its importance as a text on aikido. It can certainly be shown to pass criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NBOOK. The deleting admin (User:Cirt) suggested I raise this with the relevent WikiProjects, thus, here I am. Any objections to the article reappearing? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I support re-creating the article. There certainly seems like there are significant coverage on secondary sources. Even a detailed analysis provided at the afd which seems to have been mistakenly discounted as a passing mention. maclean (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Project scope

(quote lead sentence) "The members of this WikiProject have come together to make some suggestions about how Wikipedians may contribute to articles about books and literature in general."

To me this suggests that articles about particular books and series, authors, and awards should not carry the WP Books banner. This year I have replaced (rather than supplemented) several of them with, say, Novels and Children's literature, or Bibliographies and Science Fiction, akin to diffusing a category.

(quote section Scope) "This WikiProject aims primarily to provide book reviews and publishing history[ies] ..."

Err, that happens in narrower wikiprojects, right? Actually reading beyond the lead paragraph, and skimming this Talk page, makes me doubt that. So I am asking at last. --P64 (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This project and its scope needs a re-vamp. Since it was created there has been numerous additions, like the Novels and Children's literature WikiProjects, that should be integrated. In my opinion, this project's scope should be narrowed so that novels and short stories be directed to the NovelsWikiProject, fictional characters to WPFictionalCharacters, poems and books of poetry to WPPoetry, Children's books to WPChildren'sLiterature, authors to WPBiography, publishers to WPCompanies, literary concepts to WPLiterature, etc. maclean (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons this project was first created was to help with the MOS on books. Now that is more or less resolved, and there are a number of other groups, as has already been mentioned, which deal with a large number of the obvious subgroupings of books. Personally, I think that at least in theory the scope of the project should still include all books, with perhaps the proviso that if there is a more focused active group dealing with the same subject, this project might, basically, leave that content to them? One thing I personally would like to see sometime soon, and I may even myself perhaps bring it about, is some sort of review of the relevant reference books relating to books, specifically encyclopedia typse reference works. If such is ever done, then I would think that maybe it would be useful to have one of the projects be the "top-level" project for all related material, as at least some of the most important books (or works of literature) will also be within the scope of more focused groups. So, for instance, Asimov's Foundation Trilogy Might (but probably isn't) included at length in both an "Encyclopedia of Major Books in History" and an "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Books." In such cases, it would make sense to have it tagged for both groups. In general, however, I think it would make sense to in general leave articles on those works which have not achieved huge reputations and regard which fall in the scope of more focused projects to be tagged and included in their scope. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There may be classes of books whose particular articles no other project will claim.
Immediately below the page contents, "This WikiProject aims primarily to provide book reviews and publishing history of manuscript and published books ...". I suppose "book reviews" is a synonym for most of the intended prose content of articles on books. If "publishing history" is something every article on a book or book series should include, in your opinion, then this project will need to keep an eye on all books article, I believe. At least, that will be necessary to get publishing history into book articles at middle stages rather than high/late stages of development that many articles never attain. --P64 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
What about a first book award? Just now I have slapped the Books banner on Talk:Guardian First Book Award. Not limited to fiction, much less novels, science fiction, etc. Its purpose does seem to be recognition of literary qualities. (I am working on the newspaper's children's literature award but have no interest in this.) --P64 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Because the article is about an award, I'd direct it to WP:WikiProject Awards. Articles on awards tend to follow a unique layout, part article part list, for which their guidelines would be more applicable. maclean (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirming a first edition

I am engaged in a rather tortuous discussion with another editor about the details of a first edition. I wonder if someone could provide an independent check for me to confirm. The rather petty point of the on-going conversation is the spelling in the title of the word: "authorized" or "authorised" Despite being a British book I think the US spelling has been used on this one. I've been using WorldCat and the British Library, both of which show the first edition to be:

John Pearson, James Bond: the authorized biography of 007 A fictional biography, London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1973.

My search parameters were Pearson's name and the term "james bond biography", which ensures the results are not skewed either way. If someone could independently confirm (or correct) this, I'd be very grateful. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I should add, if no-one here can help, or if this is not the right place to be asking, could someone direct me to the right place? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
From the image on http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=3315190457&searchurl=an%3Dpearson%26sortby%3D1%26tn%3D007%2Bbiography%26x%3D65%26y%3D21 it looks like Authorized... GrahamHardy (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I just saw this. It may be worth mentioning that both spellings, -ize and -ise, are acceptable in British English. House styles of publishers are often the deciding factor. Andrew Dalby 16:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Official name of a book

I wonder if someone can help with an intereting point. When determining the official title of a book, which takes precedence: dustjacket, copyright notice, unjacketed-hardback spine or title page? We do have instances of differences in these. I thought I'd be able to verify through WorldCat, but they show three different titles for the same edition! Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To anyone describing a book or adding it to a bibliography, the real (or official) title is the one in big letters on the title page :) If there are different titles on the cover, jacket, copyright page etc., these are often worth mentioning but they shouldn't take the place of the title-page title.
On details like this, library catalogues are not as reliable as they used to be, because information is now usually gathered in advance of publication. After sending details to bibliographic agencies (and amazon), publishers sometimes have a last-minute change of mind about the title, or notice that they've made a mistake and put it right. Sometimes the libraries pick up the change, sometimes they don't. This might be a reason for the variation in WorldCat. Andrew Dalby 16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If in doubt, as Andrew says, it's the big letters on the titlepage - at least from a cataloguing perspective, which is more or less the closest we'll get to authoritative. There is some leeway regarding positioning and ordering of subtitles (these are sometimes printed in weird locations), but in most cases, it's exactly what's on that page and no other page.
The interesting corollary of using this as a baseline, though, is that standard cataloguing ignores some things that Wikipedia likes to have endless fights about - capitalisation, nonstandard punctuation, etc. Getting those aspects dropped from the "official title" is unlikely ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a date before which the U.S. Library of Congress compiled its own catalog from copies received?
LC Online Catalog evidently uses "main title" for what we call main title and subtitle in the latter disambiguation. Often we have no copy of the book whose title we know to be original. I have made the LC main title decisive a few times, without knowing whether it is right. --P64 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Cataloging in Publication data is usually updated by the national library, IIRC, though there's often a gap - the item is published and the CiP data goes live, then time passes, then the catalogue record is updated from the physical copy. This delay can sometimes be quite long! If in doubt, the national library of the original country is more likely to be accurate than otherwise! Amazon's view-in-book option often displays the title page, which is quite handy if you need to check this sort of thing and you don't have a physical copy. Alternatively, if the BL have a first edition, you can always drop me an email and I'll check it for you ;-)
As for the actual record, it can vary because bibliographic standards have changed over time - the current system, AACR2, only came in in 1978. Formally, AACR2 talks about the "title proper", which is the main title taken from the "chief source of information" (ie title page); it does not include "other title information", which is basically the subtitle - the catalogue will render this as after a colon. However, it does consider an alternative title ("X, or Y") to be part of the title proper.
This means that this book would be catalogued as having a main title of "Eric, or, little by little", and a subtitle of "a tale of Rosslyn School". Wikipedia naming conventions don't always go with this, and often invoke the "common name" rule to shorten things - for example, with Oliver Twist, our article does not include the alternative title. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the above: somehow I knew it wouldn't be a simple answer—or at least the the ramifications wouldn't be simple! A numbr of the books I've been looking at recently were published in the 1950s and 60s, so getting hold of a true first edition is a British Library (or other legal deposit) matter and I've relied on their catalogue instead, simply by way of verifiability. I've tended to avoid the U.S. Library of Congress as their coverage of UK first edition publishing isn't as good for the books I've needed to reference. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Animal literature

If most of the literature you enjoy has an animal as a main character or at its heart, please feel free to discuss a proposal for a WikiProject called Animal literature at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Animal literature. Brambleberry of RiverClan Chat ♠ Watch 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Need some help

I've been working on Life Against Death, which is currently rated as a stub. I think it's past stub quality now, and I'd like to get it reassessed. Can someone point me in the right direction? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article meets the B-Class criteria. maclean (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not asking for a detailed commentary on the article, but if you could give me a general idea of what needs to be done to improve it to a good-quality article, that'd help. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The GA criteria is here: WP:GA?. Generally, per 1a copyedit the article (For example, "Brown, who became interested in psychoanalysis after Marcuse suggested in 1953 that he should read Freud, wrote in Life Against Death that in that year he "turned to a deep study of Freud, feeling the need to reappraise the nature and destiny of man.") , per 1b the WP:Lead needs to become a stand alone summary of the entire article (re-consider the quotes in the lead, they are generally too specific to be a summary) and per MOS:LAYOUT move the "See also" section before the "references" section, per 2b provide a direct citation for every quote (this article currently has too many quotes WP:QUOTE, for example "People had to learn "how to die" or, more concretely, to learn "how to grow old."" why is it important to capture the author's exact wording here in quotes?) Also, per MOS:LQ switch to the logical quotation system. The rest is fine. maclean (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll see what I can do to make those changes, although it will take me time to consider properly how to go about it. There's no special reason why I've used direct quotes, except perhaps that I'm not a professional writer, have only a limited amount of experience writing book articles for Wiki, and that it can often be difficult to find the right paraphrase or summary of what someone says. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

{{ASIN}}

Template:ASIN has been nominated for deletion. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. I've recently created a book article, and tried to get its title in italics using the italictitle thing, but for some reason that didn't work. Is there some way of forcing the article to show the title in italics at the top? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The italics is automatically generated with the use of {{Infobox book}}. I'm not sure why it isn't working but you can force it by adding {{Italic title}} to the article. Also, it can be turned off by adding the "|italic title=no" parameter to the infobox. maclean (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I tried again with {{Italic title}}; it still didn't work. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Book's table of contents

If this is a stupid question, my apologies, but I don't write that many articles on books. Is it considered proper to include the names of chapters in a book in an article on a book, and, also, is there any sort of template available which can be used to list the titles of individual chapters in a book? John Carter (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My experience concerns fiction and comes partly from Talk or User space remarks by other editors. We have neither templates nor consistent styles, not even for classes of books so special as collections whose "chapters" are previously published stories --by a single author or one each by several authors.
For collections I think it should be universal (fiction or non-, single-author or many, previously published or original) to provide a table of annotated contents, often a series of "paragraphs" one per chapter. If the paragraphs are long enough, perhaps separate sections, a short table of contents should precede them.
Otherwise, I think there should be a list of chapters only if they merit serial attention --only if that TOC for the book is also the sub-TOC for one section of the article, in effect. --P64 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen table of contents as embedded lists in a few stub/start-class book articles. In more developed articles they tend to get integrated as prose into the Content section. Like, "Chapter One, "Foo" describes xxx...". Chapter divisions in fiction articles tend to be more arbitrary so they probably wouldn't translate that well into prose. maclean (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Listing individual chapters is a good idea, in my opinion, only when a book has received the kind of very detailed commentary that would require identifying them (eg, something like the Critique of Pure Reason). Otherwise there's probably no point doing so. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Life Against Death

I've been working on the Life Against Death article. If I understand Maclean25's comments correctly (apologies if I have this wrong), the article almost but not quite meets the GA criteria, needing only a few remaining issues to be addressed. I think I should be able to fix most of them, but I'm unsure about formatting details. Maclean 25 indicates that I should, "provide a direct citation for every quote", but I'm not totally sure what the citation format I should use is. Help with this would be welcome. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of works of William Gibson to FLRC

I have nominated List of works of William Gibson for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Town of Cats (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A Thousand Plateaus

An argument has been developing between myself and a couple of other editors at the article about A Thousand Plateaus; it concerns whether certain critical content should be included. An IP editor has insisted that sources must be provided to show that the source used for this critical content (Fashionable Nonsense) is "a significant part of this specific book's reputation" and that if they cannot be provided the material must be removed. This doesn't seem to me to have any basis in WP:NPOV. I would greatly appreciate outside comment on the issue, as it really is getting wearisome. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there PoC, came here trying to figure out how to cite a book repeatedly in its own article, found you again weighing in on another of my favorites. IMO Sokal & Bricmont should certainly be included, in what could eventually become a very interesting and well-rounded "Criticism" section. love, groupuscule (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming

Search for "crime writer" please; we want to get this through FAC when it's finished at A-class, and I'm pretty sure that isn't the right name for that sales category ... anyone know? Per the nominator, the source said "thriller writer". - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

ISBNS

Just wondering is it necessary for books on an authors page to have ISBN codes?--Mjs1991 (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary for a book to have an ISBN number. But it is to everyone's advantage for the book to have one. Everyone being readers, booksellers, authors, and publishers. Think of the ISBN number as being like your social security number, it uniquely identifies you. Read the article: ISBN. - GroveGuy (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it depends where you mean. In a bibliography (say a list of further reading) an ISBN is really handy. But an ISBN is very specific: it identifies a particular edition in a particular binding sold for a particular market. We maybe don't know the exact context of the question ... "on an authors page" ... if it's the page about Charles Dickens or about any author of the past, no, you wouldn't want ISBNs in the list of their novels: ISBNs would be advertising a particular recent edition of each book, which we ought not to do. If it's the page about a current author, I guess you might insert the ISBN of the first edition of each novel, if we're certain which is the first edition. It would be easy to get it wrong, though. Andrew Dalby 11:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi

Could some members of WP Books please keep an eye on this article? There has been a concerted effort to promote a specific recent edition of the book in the infobox rather than accurately describing the first edition, including replacing the author image with the cover of said recent edition, and changing the publisher to reflect the publisher of the new edition rather than of the first edition. More eyes are needed to keep this behavior under control. Thanks! Yworo (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that we are in mediation regarding this page. The page was updated with the current edition in good faith many months ago not realizing that violated wikipedia rules and we are just about ready to discuss this in mediation among many other things. The current edition has been on the page for a while now and in the middle of mediation someone changed it to photo of author and I put it back until the mediation is over. Was that wrong? Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was wrong. The person who corrected the infobox was following guidelines for book articles, you appear to be promoting the Self-Realization Fellowship and its edition of the book. Are you a member of the SRF? If so, you should be aware of our conflict of interest policy, which is intended to prevent precisely this sort of promotion of a particular organization's products or beliefs. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Typically, coverage is chronological, meaning that the beginning and bulk of a book article will be about its first edition. Subsequent editions are less important, and differences in each edition may indeed by called out in the article, based on reliable sources. The Ananda Sangha page about these changes is clearly a reliable source (even if it is only available though archive.org), more so actually than the SRF, which has a commercial interest in promoting their current edition. Intersectarian warfare over the content of the article is completely inappropriate. When there is more than one point of view, we include them both. Please cease removing material simply because you do not agree with it. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Red Rose keeps editing the article as if the article should be about SRF´s edited and most recent version of the book, disregarding guidelines for book articles. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Both of you, please stop accusing me personally for any reason. You don't know what my intentions are or are not. Stop referring to me as SRF and someone who is trying to "promote" a book for commercial reasons. This is called NO PERSONAL ATTACKS WP:NPA -"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Tat Sat you have been accusing me of wrong doing for at least a month now. You have been warned repeatedly about attacking editors personally. I have not defended myself. I am surprised at you, Yworo, a senior editor who is allowing him to do so without a warning. Tat Sat if you do it one more time, anywhere on Wikipedia, I will report you.
All you have to do is ASK rather than accuse. I will pretend you are asking my intentions. When I added the new cover my intention was to update the page to the present. I didn't realize the policy about books on Wikipedia at the time as I was new to editing. When I reverted edits it wasn't coming from a personal like or dislike, I honestly thought my reasoning was correct. I like Wikipedia and want to be a part of bringing truth and facts for the enjoyment of others. I don't like however, the fighting and accusing and I certainly don't think it should be on the Autobiography page.
To me this book is a blessing no matter what edition you read. As was perfectly stated by Supreme Song - "...we should stress that both editions include Paramahansa Yogananda's spirit. So in the end, which one is best is a personal choice. Whichever one you decide to read, you won't be disappointed." This statement reflects the true spirit of cooperation and my hope is that we can get to this place and realize that His blessings are present both in the first AND in the current editions.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I accused you of anything. I spoke about appearances, "you appear to be", followed by a question about your affiliation with SRF. A question that I can't help but notice that you did not answer one way or the other. So, you say "all you have to do is ASK". I am asking. Are you affiliated with SRF in any way, and if so, in what way? (ranging from just a member to on the board of directors). An answer that you are just a member is a minor conflict of interest, which if posted on your user page, should not prevent you from editing related articles. OTOH, if you are an employee or official of SRF, you should voluntarily refrain from editing related articles and just make suggestions and point out errors on the associated talk pages. Many simple members of organizations (e.g. Masons, etc.) edit articles about their organizations without any conflict of interest at all, simply by being aware of potential conflict or promotional areas and avoiding them. Yworo (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think you understand the level of personal attack necessary for someone to be blocked. Suggesting, based on behavior, a conflict of interest, is not in any way a personal attack. Especially not when bringing up the behavior on the proper noticeboards and related projects. A blockable offense would be repeatedly calling somebody something like "goddamn motherf*cking jew-hating n-word". Noting that something appears to be promotional is not an attack. It's an effort to educate, elucidate, and elicit information about the likely truth of the possibility. Yworo (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yworo you are so good at explaining things and I appreciate that. I do not represent SRF, I am not on the board nor am I an official of SRF nor an employee. Interesting that you would think I was affiliated with SRF. I am a regular person who enjoys editing on Wikipedia and enjoys reading books by saints from diverse religions. Researching details and bringing to Wikipedia clear facts for all to read, believe it or not is a joy/passion for me. Seeing controversy spurs me to do even more research to bring a clarity and balance. Also, I still plan to research those other publishers I gave you, to see if they are in Library of Congress and will add them if they are. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did check your contributions and it appeared that the only articles you edit are SRF related. But I only went back a couple of pages so perhaps didn't see your edits to the article of saints of other traditions. It did seem a reasonable thing to ask. :-) Yworo (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

CfD of Category:Books set within one day

Input from project members is welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 16#Category:Films set within one day. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

image help

Please can anybody help me respond to the challenge on File:WilliamWetmoreStory.jpg ? GrahamHardy (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added what I think is correct...GrahamHardy (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The challenger was not very clear about what the specific problem is. You can use Template:Non-free use rationale book cover which would provide a more detailed rationale. However, I suspect the issue may be that this is a copyrighted photo of a book cover that is in the public domain (it was published in 1903) - it is replaceable with a free photo. maclean (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The phrasing "book cover" in the fair use rationale is a bit misleading - this is really meant for cases of two-dimensional art as normally found on, eg, modern paperbacks. However, there's no real copyright in a plain cloth binding! What we have is a (copyrighted) picture of a pair of books photographed as three-dimensional objects, which could be replaced by a freely-licensed photograph of the same two volumes.
As there's very little information in the covers anyway (they're just plain cloth), I'd recommend using an image of the first edition titlepage instead - you can screenshot it from this archive.org copy, which is unarguably PD. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
...and uploaded! Andrew Gray (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think FuturePerfect was objecting to the source of the photo. This was not a photo that GrahamHardy took himself, but instead one he took from the Biblio website. The solution would be to ask BetweenTheCovers (the owner of the photo on Biblio) if you could use the photo. If so, then you could change the source and that would solve the problem. - GroveGuy (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A Perfect Day for Bananafish

There is an ongoing dispute at this article between myself and another editor, and I am requesting that other editors involved in this project take a look and offer their opinions on the article talk page. Thank you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page Also that short stories are covered by the NovelsWikiProject. maclean (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on novel Donkey Punch

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Bookverdict Pro

Hello! I was wondering, whether there were some users who can access to Bookverdict Pro. I found some interesting reviews there, but unfortunately I can't read (and quote) them. So, could anybody get those reviews for me? That'd be great! Regards, XanonymusX (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have access to a similar database. List which article(s) you are working on and enable your email (in 'my preferences') and I will email you the book reviews. maclean (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! I'm working on the articels about the book series The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel (for the German Wikipedia, in fact); so the six books are: The Alchemyst, The Magician, The Sorceress, The Necromancer, The Warlock and The Enchantress. Email should be enabled.--XanonymusX (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! That's really a lot of material!--XanonymusX (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire at Articles for Improvement.

Dear members of the Books WikiProject. This notification is sent from the Articles for Improvement team to let you know that the article The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire, which has been tagged as part of the project, has been selected to receive a community improvement.

Users and members of the project that are willing to help, may do so in the article's entry on the Articles for Improvement page.

Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Subtitles and Article Titles

Hello book people. Is there a guideline as to when a subtitle is used in an article title, and when it is not? (case in question: Waging Heavy Peace: A Hippie Dream) Thankee, The Interior (Talk) 23:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

New article: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

New article, created, at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "National Bestseller"

As I understand it, this is marketing jargon for the publishing industry in the US. I see it in quite a few articles. I'm wondering: is it obvious to people elsewhere that this refers to sales only in the US, as the nation is never specified? Is it used anywhere else? In consideration of WP:NPOV --Moogsi (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The nation is usually specified. It is where the book is published. The Hunger Games was on the best seller list for over 100 weeks. It is clearly stated that the book was published in New York. The Harry Potter books were published in London and then New York. Come to think of it, if I can't think of a best seller in English not published in New York or London. I think this situation is obvious to people world wide. I don't see that this is a problem. - GroveGuy (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at a few more articles and you're quite right, it's always obvious :) —Moogsi (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course the article should specify which best-seller list it was on (and how high it peaked) and be verified with a reference. There are numerous national best-seller lists in the US (New York Times, USA Today, Publishers Weekly, Nielsen BookScan etc) and they all calculate their lists differently. maclean (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Catullus 16 peer review

This is a notification that a request has been made for Catullus 16 to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of that article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

CfD Proposal to change 'Books by country' categories

There is a proposal here to alter the many categories that link books to countries or nationalities of their authors. Ephebi (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

2012-12-18: Discussion has ebbed but the proposal is still live although several more recent and shorter discussions have been closed.
Here is a cross-reference that Ephebi provided in the discussion (quote)
  • "This change was discussed before here." [2007]
The 2012 discussion touches on nationality of subject matter, of author, and where written. Where published was a theme in 2007.
--P64 (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Series, imprint, division, publisher, ...

See also "Series, and serious series" (2009-01-29) which contains the only instance of 'imprint' in seven Archives of this Talk.
{Infobox book} parameter publisher=

There is great variety in the level at which we identify publisher. Pantheon Books is an imprint of Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group which is a division of Random House which is an umbrella brand of Bertelsmann.

In the text of a book article, I suppose, we should provide freeform explanation of its first edition imprint, etc (sometimes also its editor). In the text of a biography, or its list of works, as in the publisher field of template {{Infobox book}}, it is important to be succinct. Is there any consensus --for example, always to identify the imprint if possible?

{Infobox book} parameter series=
Cross-reference: "Series, and serious series" (2009-01-29)

In the {{Infobox book}} documentation for this parameter we say only "series: Series (if any)". At book series we say "... or marketed as a group by their publisher". To me that suggests something like series="Little Golden Books may be appropriate --or is that formerly or presently an imprint? -P64

or "series=Understanding People in the Past" (example at Amazon)

or "series=Shock Shop" —a Macmillan line of short illustrated scary children's books (Google: "shock shop" macmillan) -P64 2012-12-17
Categories --some current practice

At Category:Books by publisher we say, "This category is primarily a container category for categories of books grouped by their original publisher." We go on to explicate original.

At some of the subcategories we say thus --where my quotations reproduce the linkage--

"Books published by the Free Press division of Simon & Schuster."
no preface
"Books originally published by Hamish Hamilton."

--P64 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Template broken?

Hi all, I'm not sure how closely Template talk:Infobox book is watched, but I've posted there about the template seemingly not working in terms of automatically italicizing article titles. Any help that could be offered would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved
at Template talk:Infobox book#Italicizing broken? --P64 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest news on lack of veracity of Travels With Charley -- Penguin Group confesses

Wiki needs an update on what I have learned over the past three years about the nonfictional/dishonest/fraudulent nature of John Steinbeck's "Travels With Charley" (now summed up in the ebook "Dogging Steinbeck" (http://www.amazon.com/Dogging-Steinbeck-Steinbecks-America-ebook/dp/B00A6X9ZR0):


Recent developments in the "Travels With Charley" "scandal" include Penguin Group, the current owner of Steinbeck's works, inserting a disclaimer into the introduction of the Oct. 2 (2012) 50th anniversary edition of "Charley" that warns readers that the book is so heavily fictionalized that it should not be taken literally. The disclaimer in the intro by professor Jay Parini mentions my former paper, the Post-Gazette, but not me. I, Bill Steigerwald, have written about that development in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Reason magazine's web site and the New York Post.

Plus "Dogging Steinbeck," my book about how I discovered the truth about "Charley" and ended 50 years of what I called "literary fraud," is available at Amazon.com.

From the Oct. 14, 2012 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, here is the article I wrote breaking the news that Penguin Group had confessed the truth -- http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/book-reviews/travels-with-charley-now-officially-mostly-fiction-657495/)

here is a longer version of the New York Post link:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/sorry_charley_LNMWjiR3fNhMVaYHt0FXzN

This item from my web site The Truth About 'Travels With Charley' includes a photo of the introduction page that includes the largest disclaimer:

http://www.truthaboutcharley.com/its-official-travels-with-charley-is-fiction/

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpaperboy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Antichrist

The usage of The Antichrist is under discussion, see Talk:The Antichrist (book) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Literature portal

I posted the following at WikiProject Literature, but received no response. Perhaps this project is more active?

The main sections of the Literature Portal are red links, and do not appear to have been updated since 2011. Is anyone willing to take responsibility for updates or for converting it into the rotating content model, which would not require as frequent maintenance? Otherwise I fear its featured status will need to be reviewed. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the most active project is the Novels Project -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I have also put this note on their talk page. Let's hope someone responds. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Literature has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

New article: How to Create a Mind

How to Create a Mind is my first wikipedia article. The book is non-fiction by Ray Kurzweil about the brain and the quest for artificial intelligence. I welcome any and all feedback, including whether I'm posting this in the right place. Thanks! Silas Ropac (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your article looks great to me. Keep up the good work. Note that one improver misspelled "Revealed". I don't see why you would put an announcement of your creation here, but, it doesn't hurt anything. GroveGuy (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and taking the unreviewed banner off. I saw some "new article" posts in the archives of this talk page, so I just followed suit. But there were only a few, so I guess it is not "a thing". Silas Ropac (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_7"