Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 9

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

The Gospel of Basilides - or on the contents of a non-existing book

I am in something of an edit-war on the Gospel of Basilides. My last version tells that it's contents are unknown; it is even doubtful if the book ever existed. However, User:Mhakcm prefers this version, which argues that the contens of this gospel has "similarities to the Islamic belief." I believe we got some WP:POV-pushing here. But that's me. Since I am one of the parties involved, I wonder if someone over here can have a neutral view in this. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

nothing is known for certain of the Gospel of Basilides, whether it existed or not. The standard summary of current scholarly opinion is in Schneemelcher "New Testament Apocrypha" trans Wilson; revised eidtion 1991. Fortunately the section on the Gospel of Basilides (pp 397 - 398) are accessible in Google preview; http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/New_Testament_Apocrypha.html?id=TDW0PeFSvGEC . Might I suggest that the article takes Schneemelcher as its primary source? Essentially, no quotations from a Gospel of Basilides itslf survive; but we do have quotations from Basilides 24 volume Exegetica or commentary, and some (though not all) commentators suggest that the two works should be identified.
An extended discusson of Basiledes Gospel is found Kelhoffer "Conceptions of Gospel" pp 77-97; and again much is fortunately accessible as Google preview. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pN5gqU5A9noC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=basilides+commentary+gospel&source=bl&ots=EZ_3AHaieq&sig=-rDpdEJcA5LsWCySMl32rYmH3Aw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ceRIVN-ELIa07gath4DgAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=basilides%20commentary%20gospel&f=false The matter included in the article about Simon being crucified instead of Jesus comes from Irenaeus who attributes it to Basilides, but it would appear that current sholarship (Lohr) regards Irenaeus claims to knowledge of Basilides with suspicion, because it does not accord with the perspective found in writers who quote directly from the Exegetica. The standard study is Lohr 'Basilides Und Seine Schule' 1996. In my view the crufixion story should be mentioned in the article; but with the qualification that it may well not come from Baslides - or may be his quotation from some other Gnostic writing (which is I think Ehrmann's view)
hope this helps TomHennell (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Certainly Tom you seem very knowledgeable; perhaps you can combine the two points of view and edit warring articles (i.e current and my version which Jeff5102 and JudeccaXIII keeps deleting/reverting) into one, so all aspects are clearly available to the Wikipedia reader. I am not that knowledgeable when it comes to adding sources but as I said in the edit summary all the material is sourced via Google from reputable books/sources and not chat rooms etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhakcm (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks fr your input, Tom. I do believe that the points you made are better placed at the Basilides-article, than in the article of his 'Gospel.' And since the crucifixion story is missing over there, maybe someone can add it. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Article related discussion

This should be noted at WP Poetry, Literature and here, since it won't show up on project alerts. There is a discussion at Talk:Songs of Innocence (album) including whether to move the new U2 album over the William Blake Songs of Innocence (1789) redirect to the later Songs of Innocence and Experience combined Blake collection. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New article on graphic novel Bucko

I've created a new article on graphic novel Bucko.

Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Bucko.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel

I've started a new article on the book by Janice Dickinson — No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Feel free to help out with additional secondary sources, and/or chip in with collaborative discussion at Talk:No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Set between parameter

There's ongoing discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_book#Read_by_parameter. Feel free to comment! --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is current edition of book cover fair use if a PD first edition cover exists?

Please join Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Autobiography_of_a_Yogi_current_cover.jpg and to form a broader consensus on the issue. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made changed to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images as per discussion on NFC review.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Crossing the Boulevard page

Hi, I am writing to suggest edits to the Crossing the Boulevard book page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Boulevard. I have multiple suggestions, but the first is that the title of the page shouldn't have Boulevard spelled out. The title is actually Crossing the BLVD, which is the name mentioned in the many awards and references in the text. Are you able to help me change this? Thanks! - Mary ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marybarbour (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Is there a way to delete this page: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Boulevard ? Google still brings that page up first in searches instead of the correct page. I will make additional fixes to the page to improve the quality asap.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.94.104 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

corporate gifts

These are actually enormous ideas in regarding blogging. You have touched some nice points here. Any way keep up wrinting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.179.145 (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Help review an interesting paper

As I noted at User_talk:Tbayer_(WMF)#Piotrus_contributions_on_Wikipedia.27s_research_for_November_2014_edition, there is an interesting paper (Public Domain Rank: Identifying Notable Individuals with the Wisdom of the Crowd)that can be reviewed in more detail in the upcoming November issue Wikimedia Research Newsletter (co-published with Signpost) that I think is of significant interest to librarians and digitization/open access/public domain activists. Perhaps someone would be interested in building upon my abstract-like review and providing a few more thoughts? Feel free to post on TB's page with an updated review, modify my own or add a new one. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:With the Century

Page move discussion is ongoing; I invite you to join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles (follow-up)

A while ago a talk page section that has since been archived included a very helpful suggestion by another Wikipedian, which I am renewing here.

Please write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles. Having these articles can help Wikipedians determine the trustworthiness and aspects of the books they use as sources.

My instructions:

  • 1. Search a university database like this: http://info.lib.uh.edu (After entering the book's title, go to the left pane and select "reviews"). If you see at least two book reviews, you know the book is notable as per WP:GNG - You can also get a 14 day trial to Booklist and search for reviews there.
  • 2. If you see book reviews, try using Google to see if they are publicly available. If not, use WP:RX to obtain personal copies.
  • 3. Write your article using the book reviews as sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:John Carter has some great suggestions: "If you really want to try this your best bet would be to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. I might also suggest creating some articles like Bibliography of Antarctica and some others I and others have created. But there seems to me to be rather little interest in such efforts here. Perhaps(?) a better idea for some topics might be to create pages like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles for good reference books on specific topics, as recent specialist reference sources often tend to be good indicators of academic opinions. [This was originally signed by John Carter on 10 July 2014 (UTC).]

I thought that was a great suggestion at the time, and I set to work searching for every published review of either edition of the book IQ and Human Intelligence by Nicholas Mackintosh. While I was still working on that article in draft space, I tried submitting it for the article review that happens from a draft submission. Alas, the reviews of that book are so consistently favorable that the Wikipedian who reviewed the new submission (which I thought was at best only in start class condition) then rejected the submission, because he thought the newly created article was an advertisement. I think I will try this again sometime, when I can be sure that the article is in generally good shape, and I can be sure that someone from this project will be looking on. Some books have the misfortune of receiving many favorable reviews, and oddly it is currently easier to create a new article about a book (I've seen examples) if the book has few positive reviews and quite a few negative reviews. But I will keep working on articles on books that are good sources for Wikipedia, because I think the original suggestion here is very helpful indeed. (Just now I'm coming back to the project talk page after seeing a rating by another Wikipedian of an article about another book that is a good source for many Wikipedia articles. I have that watchlisted and would also be glad to improve that existing article.) Best wishes to all of you who work on this project for many more good Wikipedia articles about books that can serve as good sources for Wikpedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on lists of books by imprint or publisher

When is it beneficial to create lists of books by imprint or publisher?

There's a Category:Lists of books by imprint or publisher, created just now by me, with 3 items currently:

There are nascent lists of notable books in sections in other publisher articles, such as Prentice Hall#Notable titles. A redirect could be created from List of Prentice Hall books to point to there, and the redirect could be included in the "Category:Lists of books by imprint or publisher". That section itself is quite brief and not written/edited to serve as a list of the most notable ones, although it could developed further of course. Like that, more lists (as sections or as separate list-articles) could be created. And an overall list-article and/or a navbox could be created to array these lists.

In another area of Wikipedia, i helped develop a number of list-articles covered by navboxes that I think is helpful: see {{Lists of churches}} and {{Lists of churches in the United States}} which cover lists of individually notable churches (congregation+its buildings) in each of many church denominations.

Not sure if lists of books by publisher are helpful or not. Perhaps if they are limited to notable books, and include notes about the books, e.g. what's different about Farrar, Straus's 2002 edition of The Brothers Karamazov? Completely exhaustive lists by publisher are not appealing to me, personally, as would seem directory-like and I think in most cases the publishers themselves publish them anyhow. Thoughts welcome. --doncram 22:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe lists of books by publisher can be very relevant, if the publisher is known for its editorial process. the FSG list is here because fsg is (was) a highly notable publisher, known for groundbreaking works. the karamazov is a new translation, i believe, considered the best yet. a publisher becoming an imprint doesnt make their prior work less notable. amistad was never very large. many publisher articles list the books in the main article. these lists should be broken out when large enough. not every book should be on the lists, of course, only books that are notable themselves. i want to also note that most publishers list authors they publish, which is pure puffery, as very few authors are tied to a single publisher, and are free agents. the books, however, stay with a publisher/imprint, and are sold along with the publisher when taken over. bottom line: if it werent for book publishing companies taking risks with new books, our civilization wouldnt be the same by a long shot, so the subject of who publishes what is vital. ok, down off the soapbox now...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My error on the dostoevsky. it was originally published by North Point Press in 1990, the FSG edition is a reprint. reprints are generally not notable, this is not one. yes, north point was acquired by fsg, but that was after 1990, so they dont get credit for it. the subject of publisher consolidation is vexing here. imprints get merged, but that only serves the publishers interest in self promotion, not the researchers need to know who was first out the gate with a new work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: List of literary awards

RFC notification: Should these four external links be included in the article List of literary awards? -- GreenC 19:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Guinness RM

You are invited to comment on a requested move at Talk:Guinness#Requested_move_24_December_2014. -- Calidum 06:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Lost River

See The Lost River, there is an argument between two users that some of the points of the book written under the section The Lost River#Synopsis are contradicting to other scholarly point of view. Their point of view should be included in notes or it shouldn't be included? They are not related to the book but related to a dominant view. Also see Talk:The_Lost_River#Danino.2C_Kazanas_.26_mainstream_scholarship. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a book that advocates a fringe theory. But the editor that created the article insists that we should follow the format of articles for books, which means that the fringe theory aspect goes without mention. Some advice from this project would be helpful. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
JJ agreed with Indoscope too here, I hope we are done now. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No, we are not done. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue has been resolved now, with the help of an admin from the Frige Theory Noticeboard. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for getting more books to have their own Wikipedia pages

I wanted to start a topic in hopes of getting thoughts on the idea of having publishing companies collaborating with the making of pages for books. It's unclear to me who heads the WikiProject Books group, but I think an efficient way of getting more book pages (while still maintaining neutrality) is having some particular position in a publishing group write up the basic info for a book (i.e. summary/description, publishing info, relevant author info, etc.) that they're releasing and having them post that to a talk page before it becomes a live page; members of the WikiProjects Book group could assess the info for neutrality and factuality and whatever else is in the guidelines, and from that they can filter what they don't like and post the acceptable material onto a page for that book. I think building a good relationship with publishing companies -- and getting this word out -- would be great for Wikipedia's content variety. There are thousands of books published per year, many that are already considerably noteworthy at the time of release that don't even have a page. Having this relationship keeps both parties relevant without necessarily posing some sort of agenda in terms of promoting a book: it can simply be seen as them providing us with basic info about their book (which should take them very little time) while we provide another platform for which their book exists (which likely could happen at a later period anyway). Not only would this increase the number of pages with books, but it could also encourage Wiki contributors to add to the page without the intimidation of starting it by themselves.

Having not been able to go through the whole extent of the Wiki guidelines (particularly for books), I am not entirely sure if this is entirely out of the question. However, even if it is, I feel this could be a point for reconsidering the existing regulations; there are a great many books that don't have pages (many of which already having considerable notoriety) that would have a page already, had this been a plan that was already in effect.

I invite any and all that find this an interesting-enough idea, as I would really like to hash-out with more experienced WikiProject Books contributors that have a more intimate understanding of the workings of Wikipedia's legal codes and so on. Agonzo (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We will always need neutral editors working on all Wikipedia articles. Editors with a conflict of interest generally don't produce very good article content. One problem I have encountered in adding new articles about books is that if the book has many favorable reviews, other editors mistake the article about the book as an advertisement--which actually makes it easier to create a new article about books that are middling in quality rather than about books that are really good. But I will keep trying to create new articles about books that are themselves good sources for other articles on Wikipedia, following a suggestion made earlier in this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
So it wouldn't be helpful at all if publishing companies helped Wiki contributors by supplying basic information about the books? Or at least that being the means to gather that information (i.e. calling/emailing publishing groups and making a request)? I feel the nature of what is being asked doesn't really invite too much bias, so it wouldn't be that cumbersome on the person editing the page in terms of filtering the content. And thank you for responding so quickly; I am using this talk as an opportunity to further understand how the editing process works when making Wikipedia pages for books, and was curious about the procedures made in terms of new books, as well as books that have been around for decades but still have no page of their own (despite there being equal value in those books as there is in more modern texts that have Wikipedia pages.) Is this a product of the demand/resources of the Wikipedia team? My rough conclusion was that book pages are more dense depending on the demand for that information (it's level of popularity within pop culture or a particular subculture), and because of that there is an order of priority in what pages need to be made and what has to wait or be set aside indefinitely. Do you think Wikipedia is better off that way? I mean, these new books are easily searchable in other places (for the most part), so WikiProject's Book focus should be somewhere else? --Agonzo (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
First on my wish list from publishers would be copyright-free images of (1) book covers or (2) the author with the book. maclean (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, if it is just about creating the article, for conflict-of-interest people there is Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Requested articles. Do you have any publishing companies that are interested in a collaboration? maclean (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to give a bit of my own wishlist for publishers: I'd love it if a publisher could file a ticket through ORTS to give us permission to use part of the book jacket summary. I absolutely hate trying to come up with a new summary for the article if the book hasn't been released or I haven't read the book, plus rehashing the book jacket runs the risk of getting things very wrong or having something that's still a pretty close copyright violation. Although as far as publishers writing here... they're already here. I can't remember which publisher it was, but for a while there we had a mainstream publisher that was making tons of pages for their authors and linking to them on their official website. This wouldn't have been so bad except that a large majority of the authors failed notability guidelines since their books never really gained that much coverage, if any. They eventually stopped but to this date they were never officially called out and they never openly stated a conflict of interest. It was pretty much a nightmare trying to clean up after and there are still dozens of pages left over that were never found. I can't remember which publisher it was, but it was one of the larger publishers. They've all since changed their website layout, so I can't easily detect which one it is/was. In any case, I don't particularly mind them being here but they would absolutely NEED to go through either AfC or the request page for books. OR if they're so inclined, they could go to the reward page and offer goodies for people who create a set number of well-sourced pages about their authors and/or books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for review outlets

Hi all! Recently there was an AfD for the book Girl Meets Ghost and the subject of reviews came up. This ended up dominating much of the AfD and we ultimately came to the consensus that we're long overdue for a good look at what is or isn't a reliable source. Much of this revolved around trade reviews, predominantly because of their length, and we all sort of agreed that we need to look at whether or not trade reviews are usable, as well as whether or not length is something that would eliminate a source for notability purposes. I also think that we should probably create a list of usable and non-usable sources if there are any exceptions to things, such as exemplary trade review outlets or so on. I know that other WikiProjects tend to have a yes/no list when it comes to website and outlets for sources, so I think it's reasonable for us to have one as well.

I think that before we start saying that length is a nullifying factor in review sources, we should look at what trades are usable or not usable. I want to first and foremost say that I think that trade outlets and academic/scholarly outlets should be treated as separate entities. The reason for this is that while some of the scholarly reviews can outwardly resemble trade reviews, the scholarly outlets publish reviews on a far smaller scale through an academic or scholarly journal, they have a very small number of set reviewers (as opposed to the larger trades), and they tend to have a more visible editorial process for reviews. Their reviews also tend to be somewhat different in how they're written, at least in my opinion. They're kind of the reason why I hesitate to say that a short review shouldn't be included, since I've seen some of the scholarly sources write some pretty short and insightful reviews. Here's a Slate article that goes into some depth about trade review outlets in general but the major ones in specific.

In any case, here are some of the common arguments against trade reviews. Some of these were brought up at the AfD, some of them are just common arguments that are brought up in various different places.

Arguments against
  1. Trades tend to review a large number of books each year, as opposed to news outlets or other sources. (One estimate has Publishers Weekly reviewing 9,000 books a year, as opposed to the NYT reviewing about 1,000 - 1,500 a year.)
  2. Many of these reviews tend to be positive, running the risk that they're just a review mill. Publishers Weekly is a good example of this, as is Kirkus Reviews.
  3. Trade reviews are usually very short and tend to summarize the book jacket. Again, Publishers Weekly is the best example of this, since 98% of their reviews are summary and only one line will typically be the actual review.
  4. Many do not list the author of the piece and in some cases (Publishers Weekly) the reviews are said to be done entirely by interns.
  5. Some trades will accept payment for reviews, usually for independent books. An infamous example of this is Kirkus Indie, which sells book reviews.
  6. Some of the trades are not intended to be review outlets per se, but are instead intended to be a buying guide for libraries, bookstores, and the like.

Now here are some of the arguments for trade reviews.

Arguments for
  1. Trade reviews do review a great many books, but they do not review every book that is released.
  2. While many of the reviews will be positive, they are not always unanimously so and many trades will give negative reviews.
  3. While trades will summarize the book jacket heavily, some of the trades do give a fairly in-depth review of the book albeit in a few sentences. The ALA's Booklist tends to be a good example of this.
  4. Not all trades are anonymously written and some have a set staff of reviewers while others will only accept reviews from certain people. A good example of this is the Library Journal and its companion journal, the School Library Journal. They do allow librarians of various types to submit reviews , but they do undergo an editorial and vetting process.
  5. Not all trades require payment for review and the ones that do should be considered invalid for notability purposes.
  6. Some of the trades did start out as buying guides, but they evolved into review outlets and in some instances, are considered to be extremely influential. Also, some of these outlets have been around in some form or fashion for at least (and in some cases over) 100 years.
  7. Some of the trades do publish their reviews in a physical format.

What I'm proposing is essentially that we vet some trades as far as notability giving purposes go and finally outright say that all others are considered to be unusable for notability purposes. Here's another collapsed shell with my personal opinions on which ones should be used and which ones shouldn't:

Trades
  1. Publishers Weekly: This one should not be used. It's extremely long lived, but they review so many books and their reviews are usually pretty slim on the actual review. In some instances I've had to squint and look pretty hard to find what part of the review is actually the review. However their news pieces tend to be pretty well written, so I think that they can be used for their news pieces. Not usable for reviews, usable for news pieces.
  2. School Library Journal/Library Journal: I'm considering them to be one outlet for the most part, as they are run by the same company and for the most part operate in the same manner. While they do review a lot of books, they don't review everything that is out there. They also tend to give a more in-depth look at the books they're reviewing, plus they list the book's reviewer and their editorial process is relatively transparent. Usable for reviews and news pieces.
  3. Booklist: This one is sort of up in the air. They do review a lot, but they don't review everything that's out there. They do have a long list of reviewers, but all reviewers must go through a vetting process and they do have an editorial board. It's also run through the ALA. They also publish more in-depth reviews through their print publication. In general their reviews tend to be more in-depth than some of the others. Generally usable.
  4. Kirkus Reviews: They review quite a lot and they are not always positive, but they also accept payment for some book reviews. (These reviews are labeled.) However because they do accept payment, I'm considering them not usable for reviews.

These are just the basics, but the thing to remember here is that there are a lot of outlets that are almost always considered to be reliable sources but would likely be considered book trades. The Horn Book Guide is one that would likely be considered a trade and they're considered to be very reliable as a source, especially since they do have some awards that are considered to be mildly notable. However the interesting thing is that they are run by the same outlet as the SLJ/LJ. This is getting a bit long so I'll cut this off here but this should be enough to get the conversation started. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I favor accepting them all, except for the paid-reviews. I don't see why brevity of the "review" matters, the point is the book caught attention. I'm thinking of some dozen or so books I have not created entries for, because I can't even find them in PW or KR, let alone any newspapers. Those are clearly non-notable. I have one book in mind whose only review I've ever found was in NYT. Again, non-notable. Choor monster (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Choor monster: Non-notable is "no one said anything who was not paid to do so". We, thankfully, as Wikipedians, do not have to worry about literal "shelf-space" and should not worry about the virtual equivalent. Otherwise, we should just print Wikipedia and be done with it. I also daily think about what books to create entries for. Yesterday it was Gloria Naylor's Bailey's Cafe. But for every article I do create I must skip 10 or 12 possibles. HullIntegrity\ talk / 15:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Query: Just to understand the nature of the discussion, could the Children's Literature group have a different set of guidelines from the Books Project? Is there some hierarchy (for want of a better word) here I am missing? HullIntegrity\ talk / 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment (moved from previous discussion): I want to transition my comment from the previous discussion. If that is inappropriate, please let me know. -- External notability bias for children's literature: I would like to point out that when looking for "solid reviews" to prove "notability" there are many fewer credible reviewers of children's literature, and fewer venues for publishing those reviews, and the page space (the "inches") given to said reviews are much less than for mainstream fiction. Which is not to mention that there are many fewer awards (two main ones and a few others), so the chances of a quality children's book "passing muster" by the standards currently set for mainstream fiction may have to be looser for children's literature: a semi-protected class if you will. Four to five picture books a year get Caldecott medals. By comparison, how many credible SF awards are out there? Too many for me to take the time to count to prove this point. External bias can yield incidental internal bias. And then there is the issue that if I write and publish a review of Girl Meets Ghost in a reputable journal or magazine (which I most certainly could, though I would prefer not to at this time) then I have walked into a Conflict of Interest as I would be self-promoting my own academic work. Children’s Literature is a very large industry with very few critics willing to follow it as it is considered a “career killer” in academe. I am a full professor with tenure, so that does not bother me since that part of my career is done. But many academics and journalist-critics just won’t touch Children’s literature. So we have a systematic bias that results in inadvertent Wikipedia bias. Sometimes the same rules should not apply to everything. HullIntegrity\ talk / 23:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pursuant to WP:GNG and WP:NB, the point is that it be "non-trivial coverage", regardless of which of the above sources it is coming from. I interpret a dedicated review as non-trivial, but a listing (ie. title, publisher, price) in the 'also published this month' section as trivial. maclean (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment* I agree. HullIntegrity\ talk / 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Are all listings worthless for notability? I have come across library journal articles listing official recommendations for children's literature, broken down by genre. Choor monster (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It would somewhat depend on the listing. Sometimes libraries will list the books they received that month or journals will list newly released works as well. Stuff like that can't be used to show notability. However if you're talking about stuff like YALSA's recommendations, then that would probably be usable to show notability depending on the list. Their Best Fiction for Young Adults would be usable, but a list that was based on stuff that they'd recommend for libraries/teachers looking for books based on the American Revolution would most likely not be usable unless the list went into some depth. For example, this list by the Library Journal/Horn Book Guide wouldn't be usable since it's somewhat of a routine list and doesn't go into any true depth, so it's pretty much trivial in tone. Basically if the list is something that is extremely exclusive and is considered to be an award in and of itself (but isn't strictly labeled as such) then it'd be usable. If it's just a recommended reads section then it probably isn't usable regardless of whether or not it's on a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The specific listing that triggered my question is this one, regarding recommended Puerto Rican literature, from the RASD/ALA (References and Adult Services Division, American Library Association):
  • Freiband, Susan; Morales, Nydia (Fall 1993). "From Committees of RASD". RQ. 33 (1). ALA: 50–62. JSTOR 25829432.
I've not used it and wasn't expecting it to be usable. Choor monster (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Books and Children's

Query - I have noticed a trend that Wikiproject Books banners on Children's Literature articles are being systematically removed. Does that need to be discussed? Does the Books Project not want to be associated with Children's Lit? It just seems odd since we seem to be discussing Children's, middle grade, and YA a lot here. HullIntegrity\ talk / 15:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what the purpose of having separate Wikiprojects for Books, Novels and Children's Literature is supposed to be accomplishing. Seems like a lot of duplication and division of resources. Regardless, I tag articles to the most specific WikiProject available, like WPPChildren's Literature rather than WPPBooks. Tagging them with multiple projects seems like it exacerbates the duplication and division of resources problem and dilutes the purpose (or identity) of individual Projects. maclean (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Some wikiprojects provide clear statements of scope. Even more explicitly WP:Books section 1 is a list of instructions pertaining to the talk page banner, including one "Articles concerning fiction should be directed to WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Children's literature and WikiProject Fictional characters."
I would prefer there be a Books project happily taking or sharing reponsibility for articles such as book, of course, and American Booksellers Association, editor, endpapers, library, National Book Award, picture book, small press, vellum, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
I link only some of those such articles to Portal:Books --no children's book or writer articles such as Wesley Dennis (illustrator); rather, Portal:Children's literature.
Among those ten pages only Weidenfeld & Nicolson now links the Books portal (if i glance correctly!). Three of the talk pages display the WP Books banner: talk:book and two that display it alone, namely talk:endpaper and talk:small press.
--P64 (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
All of that is very useful to think about. Thank you (all above). I clearly have some reading to do. HullIntegrity\ talk / 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see Taskforces used more, rather than starting up new WikiProjects. But until then, I like what Template:WikiProject Canada has done with all their over-lapping Wikiprojects. —maclean (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll point out that WP:NOVELS already has 17 task forces and one more in development. (See the sidebar, near its bottom.) Choor monster (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Origins

I have read the of this article, but I don't see any reference to the origine of the script and illustrations. How was the manuscript acquired in the 1st place, and by whom. How did it come to be in the possession of anyone in the west. How old is the original text/images estimated to be. I tried to do a search on many of the engines, and was unsuccessful. Any help to ahead light on the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprice17 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Kindle books as reliable sources

Sorry to bother you all, just have an enquiry as i'm not familiar with using Kindle books as sources. If a book is available to purchase from the Amazon Kindle store and is listed as "Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc." with no specific publisher, am I right in assuming that the book is published by Amazon (being a notable organisation), and is therefore acceptable to use as a reference? Or are they taken on a case by case basis? Do Amazon have set standards for what can be sold by "Amazon Digital Services, Inc." or can books that are sold via this manner be self-published? I ask as i'm considering purchasing this Kindle book [1] in order to expand the article Bambi Woods, though I don't want to go to the trouble if it wouldn't be considered reliable. Thanks for your time. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't know what standards the publish-on-demand service "Amazon Digital Services, Inc." sets. But regarding your specific example, that article is subject to WP:BLP, and WP:RS says "Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". maclean (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Freikorp (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Donations

Hello all, there are two recent donations available through The Wikipedia Library that are relevant to this project: WP:Women Writers Online and WP:Project MUSE. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Enjoy! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Category definition

The instructions for Category:Child characters in literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) state "As with real children, the term refers to characters who are understood to be biologically and/or chronologically under age 21 during the course of a film in which they are depicted." The age of 20 is far beyond the age of childhood for science and numerous religions. The sourced info in our article child states "is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty" and the sourced info in the puberty article gives the ages of 10-11 for girls and 11-12 for boys. I propose that we change the wording in the instructions to give the age of 12 as the cutoff for this category. Now if we want to use 13 or even 14 to error on the side of caution that would be okay but IMO this cat should not be in articles where the young characters are older than 14. Any and all input on this will be appreciated. When a consensus is reached we should add the new instructions to the cat page and to any appropriate MOS's. I am cross posting this at the novels project as well. If there is a better place to centralize this discussion let me know and I will move it there. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Only today I read the contemporary copy of this notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Category definition, and replied there with observations concerning our comprehensive practices concerning of Child writers and --in a word I didn't use-- Children's literature. That is, we include teen/YA writers and generally include teen/YA literature.
MarnetteD cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Category definition. I am the first to reply at either location.
I reported the two 6-week-old notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature#Children are pre-teens, right? --as in the two preceding paragraphs modified only for the different locales.
In principle, I believe, WP Children's lit is "a better place to centralize this discussion" but that project is almost dead, unlike Novels and Books. --P64 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard Choices, new article about book on climate change in Canada

I've created a new article about the book on climate change in Canada, titled, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada.

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (Coward book).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Scope Question

I'm wondering about the scope of this project. The "Scope" section of the project page says that "Articles on poems should be directed to WikiProject Poetry." I guess it's clear that this means topics on poems are in the scope of WP:Poetry. But what about books of poems, like Cien Sonetos de Amor; or books about poems, such as a critical review of poetry?

I've scrubbed through the history of the talk page and can't find converation about this; does anyone remember the intent of the project, and the reasoning? -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • - I must admit I am curious about the same thing. I suppose I am pretty literal (denotation) about what a "book" is, but this project seems to be a bit more selective, for want of a better word (though "biased" comes to mind safely ensconced in these polite parentheses) about what constitutes a "book". HullIntegrity\ talk / 14:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I, too, have thought about this but have never come up with a satisfying reason to include or exclude books of poetry. WikiProject Books provides information and tools for guiding the establishment and development of non-fiction books; NovelsWikiproject for fiction books (including books of short stories). Article on poems have a unique structure and codes, but I'm not sure how a fully developed (FA-class) article on a book of poetry would look like. Is there anything specialized/unique about them that they should be guided by special guidelines at WikiProject Poetry? Or are the guidelines at WPBooks or WPNovels suitable? As far as I know, the most developed articles of such are User:Figureskatingfan's Maya Angelou ones, like I Shall Not Be Moved (poetry), which are at GA-class. maclean (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a good question, maclean -- probably the right way to think of the scoping. Thing is, Novels and Childrens' Lit (for example--there are others) are excluded from Books for presumably the reason that articles on each would take different forms. I guess some poems are accountings of reality (non-fiction), and some are essays (opinion), and some could be fiction (big epics). How do we go about resolving the question? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The Scope section at the top of the main page begins with a general lead sentence, "WikiProject Books was formed to organize and promote quality coverage of books on Wikipedia." Only thereafter it pertains narrowly to use of the Talk page banner {{WP Books}}. The banner isn't the only way to delineate scope, although it is an obvious basis for some purposes, thanks to assessment parameters and generation of reports such as Category:B-Class Book articles.
People here may be concerned with coverage of books defined in other ways, such as pages that transclude one of the book templates {{Infobox book}} and {{Infobox book series}}; or pages placed in the category structure under Category:Books; or, more specifically than the latter, Book covers or Book stubs.
--P64 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Kirkus reviews

Friends, I'm not terribly experienced with article creation in this topic area, and so I was wondering whether there was a list of online sources that qualified as reliable for the purposes of notability, and particularly whether kirkus reviews was such a source. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I am most certainly interested in hearing the response to that question as well. Though, if I understand correctly, any "list" could only operate as a "general guideline" subject to consensus on a case-by-case basis. I have used Kirkus as children's books get really poor coverage, compared to other genres, in mainstream media; but, I have also taken some flak for it. HullIntegrity\ talk / 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I too support use of Kirkus Reviews, however, I expect at least one longer review. If you're having trouble finding more reviews, simply ask here regarding the author and book. (That's much cleaner than the method some use: create the article, wait for the AfD, and then people find reviews.) One trick is to doublecheck amazon.com and books.google.com: in addition to user-generated reviews (completely unusable by us) they often identify MSM reviews. Choor monster (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • - I totally agree with Choor monster. With my students I use the "Rule of Three": three reviews if possible (five is better). If an AfD drops on a new entry, and newer editors are more likely to be targeted, it is a lot more work for everyone to save it. HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
List what book it is you are researching and I will check my off-line sources. maclean (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Inside the Atom, by Isaac Asimov. I haven't performed a thorough search yet, though; my cursory search yielded Kirkus reviews, and I was curious about its status. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "You cannot live in our modern world without understanding the tiny atom, and this lucid explanation leads on to many things, such as the atomic-powered submarine." -"Books tor Teen-Agers Ideal Christmas Gift". The Globe and Mail Dec 13, 1958; pg. 22; via ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
That is the only mention I found. You might find some mentions in Asimov biographies. maclean (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's another review, also from ProQuest, one paragraph in Schumacher, Dorothy."Space Age Books" Chicago Daily Tribune (1923-1963) [Chicago, Ill] 02 Nov 1958: b7. Choor monster (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • JSTOR is a 3 full paragraph review, Guy V. Bruce, The Clearing House, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Sep., 1957), pp. 48-49.
  • JSTOR is Hilary J. Deason, "Traveling High-School Science Libraries", Science, New Series, Vol. 124, No. 3230 (Nov. 23, 1956), pp. 1013-1017. The article describes a program, sponsored by the AAAS, of a short list of 150-200 science books that were used in a pilot program to advance science education, including ITA.
    • At this rate, I would say the book passes notability. If others agree, go ahead and create the article.
  • One more item. JSTOR "Books of the Week", The Science News-Letter Vol. 74, No. 11 (Sep. 13, 1958), p. 172 is simply a one-sentence summary. I've asked before, and it seems this sort of mention doesn't help regarding notability, but there is an advertisement on the same page for a wrist-watch with built-in slide rule. How cool is that?. Choor monster (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, friends. Much appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Women in Love First edition image deletion

Hi, Is the deletion of the first edition image on this article justified ? the reason given being that as the book was published prior to 1923, a free image is theoretically possible... GrahamHardy (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Newbie Bonehead here: I intend to edit a wikipedia page, LibriVox, what is listed as within the scope of your Book project. What coordination do I need with you folks?

I'm pretty new to wikipedia and read a notice about your WikiProject-Books on the talk section of the LibriVox page. I get the gist of it but don't know how much if any coordination is needed between us. Any help in this area you have would be appreciated. Thanks. TimoleonWash (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Go ahead and edit. If you have any questions or want someone to review, let us know. maclean (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Country of first publication

Hello! After having corrected "Ireland" to "United States" in articles concerning The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel as the country of first publication, I have some questions left: 1) What to do with The Magician: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel? It was obviously released on 5 June 2008 in the UK and only on 24 June in the US: should I insert "United Kingdom" as country, or can we just consider the book as part of the US series and therefore use "United States"? I only know for sure that it is not an Irish book! 2) Categories like Irish young adult novels or Irish fantasy novels can be corrected to their US counterparts, can't they? Best regards, --XanonymusX (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

After a glance at the series and first book articles I doubt that we should call the series American in prose, or put its articles in American categories, or give simply Country: United States in its infoboxes. Without investigating further, I suppose that it exemplifies co- or simultaneous publication. I doubt that we generally handle such works adequately.
For the first book in series The Alchemyst we give publication dates 2007-05-22 US and 2007-05-24 UK. That two-day difference doesn't support identification as American rather than British (or Irish) and our text does not do so --appropriate, I daresay. Our series article The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel also gives "Country: United States" in {{infobox book series}}. The publisher Random House is not specifically American and the lead section identifies three RH imprints for UK, Australia, and US editions. Our two lead sections assign nationality to, or "nationalize", only the writer, "Irish author Michael Scott" --wh seems appropriate to me.
We provide no information in the lead sections regarding the editors who worked with Michael Scott, and should try to do so in the body of the series article, at least.
Our biography Michael Scott (Irish author) shows that some other works by Scott are Irish in title in content. Afaik at a glance, Nicholas Flamel is English and Continental rather than Irish or Celtic in origins.
Perhaps we have sometimes called the work Irish because the first two books were 2008 and 2009 "Irish Book of the Year". --P64 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Klingsor's Last Summer first edition image potential deletion

Please can someone help rescue ? Thanks, GrahamHardy (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

I have a question regarding WP:NBOOK. Point 1 for notability indicates: 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book' Does this refer to book reviews? AusLondonder (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Published book reviews help establish notability. I can better help if you provide more specifics of what you are looking at. maclean (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think one point may be published book reviews rather than blurbs. I don't mean that multiple books cannot be reviewed in one article but do mean to exclude some columns that are strings of blurbs. I've checked a few reviews in monthly magazines, which are catalogued by ISFDB, and found some book review columns that comprise mainly (what I call) blurbs.
out of time before i can link an illustration --P64 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration

Eyes are needed here, in regard to NPOV, OR and appropriate sourcing. This has been the subject of a recent Arbitration Request, where ArbCom remanded the issue to the community. BMK (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ace Books FAR

I have nominated Ace Books for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Crispulop (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Battle for Bittora: Anuja Chauhan listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Battle for Bittora: Anuja Chauhan to be moved to Battle for Bittora (novel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

CfD: Science books

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_24#Category:Science_books. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Book not obsolete

There are many articles about published books with quality rating Stub. We could clean them up fast if we update Template:Book.

Moved to Template talk:Book
 – Gpeja (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Publisher articles

I can't tell from the project page, should this project take an interest in articles on publishers, imprints, and editors? Things like Oxford University Press, Penguin Books, John Wiley & Sons or Addison Wesley come to mind. If so, perhaps some guidance would be helpful.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • It is ambiguous. Lots of non-book articles have been tagged as belonging to this project because they are topically linked in some way (like publishers, imprints, and editors). But other wikiprojects provide much better guidance on those types of articles. Any article on people should definitely follow the conventions of WikiProject Biography. Likewise publisher-articles should follow the conventions and guidelines of WikiProject Companies. All this wikiproject can offer for those other types of articles is an audience that may have over-lapping interests or expertise. maclean (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems sensible. Care to tweak the project page accordingly? Most project pages put such things in the "Scope" section. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I too feel that this should be addressed. There are many publishers on the Wiki which have little information on their respective articles, even the more notable, or at least the ones less known but have a great legacy, are neglected. I propose maybe a sub project, unless if similar has been created elsewhere, for this to be taken care of. Uamaol (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These possible copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

New York Times Bestsellers Suggestion

Hi all,
I need someone to help me fill out the tables on The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2011 and The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers of 2012. I just created these two pages today using the formatting and content from the 2013 page. It seems odd to me how 2011 and 2012 and missing pages on Wikipedia, so I started creating them.

Thanks. KevinLiu (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on the subject of whether Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) should become a guideline, which is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?. James500 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_9"