Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

Welcome to our WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum.
Please sign and date your entries by
inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
    

Our main WikiProject page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Documentation

Introduction to Discussion Forum

As some are getting a little confussed about where to go for General Project Wide discussions, and as other projects, (including the WikiProject style guide include a forum like this) I have established this for General discussion.

It should be used for anything project wide, and try to use the individual page talk pages for anything specific to that page. i.e. smaller issues.

Also announcements to the wider project user base perhaps should be made here. Not quite a one stop shop, but close.

Enjoy :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

His Dark Materials Task Force

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

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

Warriors (novel series)

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

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

Some targets for the next year

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

Good idea, it has been said "if you don't aim at anything, you are sure to hit your target". I am unsure that "1000 B class articles" is do-able. Needs to be something that is atleast conceptually possible and that I see as one step too far. Go basis though, we do need to rack up the activity level from everyone. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? We need only 58 more articles in 52 weeks. If we work hard, it should be doable. :) Pmlineditor 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Articles in focus" sounds a lot like a "Collaboration of the Week/Month" or Wikipedia:Spotlight. I don't think either of those are good mechanisms for this project at this time because they are both centralized efforts depedendant upon a critical mass which this project currently doesn't have. Wikipedians are very much decentralized, working on random items as it suits them. Even if you were continually successful in herding the cats each week/month to work on one article at a time, you would only get an additional B-class article every week/month - an enormous effort for little gain and not much satisfaction. And don't worry about stubs - it is a perpetually expanding category with several articles added each day (and publishers are not about to stop publishing novels any time soon). --maclean 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-fiction

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

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

Steven Erikson's Gardens of the Moon

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

I see what you mean - by all means go ahead. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found as many sources as possible, added them, and rewritten a bit. The bulk of the article is not sourced and a rehash of the plot. I don't want to step on toes of other editors, but I'd like to delete any text not sourced. Does your comment above support deletions of all unsourced text? Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I Love You, Beth Cooper

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

images

FYI, a bunch of novel cover images have recently been nominated at WP:FFD for deletion. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

audio books?

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

Readers of audio books - there's and interesting concept surely they are "listeners to audiobooks". No no prolice although they are included in Publication histories sometimes. What do you think / propose. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps (just ignore me if this is a ridiculously outlandish suggestion) they should be treated like how soundtracks are for films, if you know what I mean. No. Scratch that. Well, not exactly. Just sort of merged with the rest of the article. Or maybe a separate section for audiobooks, with a very small infobox with reader, publication date, publisher. Or that sort of stuff could be added to the normal novel/book infobox. Separate parameters with "Audiobook reader". Publication dates etc. could just be set out like...uh, here's an example;

Novel/book/whatever
October 13, 2009 (US)
October 14, 2009 (UK)
October 14, 2009 (CDN)
Audiobook
October 23, 2009 (US)
October 45, 2009 (UK & CDN)

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

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

The Oregon Files

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

Ok, set to work on one and let me know and I do what I can. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They're good books. I'll help where I can. Alan16 (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll also be pleased to help. Pmlineditor 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing a lot of work on the pages The Oregon Files, and Golden Buddha on my talk page and I was wondering if anyone could check/improve my work. I was also wondering if listing China as an antagonist in Golden Buddha was okay or if it was too racily discriminative and if I should change it to focus on the characters and time of the novel. Thanks for your anticipated help and support Gloryify (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

Collaboration

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

AfD

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

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

minor problem with 2000 novel stubs?

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

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

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

Articles for deletion

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

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

Steven Erikson

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

New York Times notability?

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

• The NYT site should be free, but it is very difficult to navigate their best-seller list. Their "Notable Book" section is for the books that did not sell well-enough to make the list but are still worthy of mention.--maclean 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Would it be archived? If not, does someone maintain an archive? How about even the best-sellers themselves? This was interesting but not quite what I was after... And this might have the info in there somewhere. I've emailed the user to see if they will share their master data. --John (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Google News Archive gives a large number of searchers that can be used to add to the article. Reviews are always relevant.

Among them is [2], which documents New and Noteworthy for Flame Bearers. In my experience, GNArchive is the best way to navigate their site.

I cannot find the Alice Walker citation. There are however numerous quotes of Walker's praise of various books of Chernin. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much. If you would be able to add anything to the article (preferably to provide better sources for the commented out bits which came from her own site, or else amend them), I would be very grateful. --John (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

TV apps

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

Collaboration

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

On the Great American Novel

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

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

Friday Unreferenced Sections

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

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

• Am I correct in citing those sections for No Reliable Sources, Original Research and In-universe Perspective?
• Should those sections be removed or am I being too doctrinaire-slash-anal? I mean, in an encyclopedia that allows a whole section on Data's cat (from Star Trek), do the in-universe sections in the article about Friday really mean so much?
• I would also like your thoughts about my idea of "In-novel perspective" sub-articles (see the paragraph starting with "In conclusion..." in Talk:Friday (novel)#Response to Mr. Goldsmith).

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

There is a lot to read, so this reply is only an initial point. To do with the idea that the novel itself should be a valid source - the novel can only be a source for things explicitly stated (e.g. A is X). Anything interpretation of the novel is, IMO, WP:OR. As I said, that is just an initial comment, I'll read the full debate and get back to you. Alan16 (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be sources for Heinlein's Friday as it's not recent. I agree with RoyGoldsmith's assessment, and I'd try to rewrite, bringing the article from in-universe to real world using sources. If that's not possible, then delete the extraneous text, in my view. Like Alan16's, that's only an initial response, will add more if necessary, or add to the talk page. Also will look for sources for Friday, time permitting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I suppose you could go ahead and start rewriting. I've found that too many articles about novels are pure in universe plot summaries that cannot be verified with sources. The Heinlein Concordance is good and has a nice little plot summary, so that's certainly usable. Also, I like the manner in which Starship Troopers has been written -- in my view that would be the example to use for Friday. I do apologize, I actually completely forgot about this and forgot to watch the article page. I'll have a closer look -- but my inclination is to say delete and turn into a real world perspective (or perhaps write the real world perspective first and then replace.) Hope that helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with rewriting is that I can't conveniently find the sources on Friday I'd need, unless I want to go in to the research library on 42nd St in Manhattan. Even they may not have much on Friday and I can't afford to take a trip to Santa Cruz (where the Heinlein archives are stored). I don't think there is much written on the real-world perspective of Friday. Certainly not what Wikipedia would call reliable sources.

In my opinion, you need three sources on a specific topic (like Heinlein's theme of abandonment as expressed in Friday or the relationship between Friday and other Heinlein novels), each one about the size of a master's thesis (say a minimum of 20 pages, with extensive endnotes), in order to paraphrase and summarize their contents. In certain, rare cases, you can get away with only two sources, if they are sufficiently authoritative and more-or-less agree with each other. Otherwise you're just summarizing one person's opinion. (For example, I wouldn't feel right, sumarizing the already-summarized Heinlein Concordance as a single source. I wouldn't remove content that cited the Heinlein Concordance; I just wouldn't use such material myself.)

You can use the text of the novel to summarize the plot (and maybe the characters) but that's all. Anything beyond a summary that would make it into a good Cliff's Notes is inappropriate. Your article on Alex Delaware was fine: you summarized each of the 23 novels in which he was a chararater in in a few sentences. But Friday only exists in one novel.

Maybe I'm too anal. (I spent the better part of 1985 performing cite checks on a real, paper encyclopedia of computer science, sold for real money. Maybe I take that year too seriously for Wikipedia.) But can you see any realistic way that the nine sections can be transformed into real world perspective? (Other than ignoring them. In your opinion, does the wiki-consensus kind of recommend that I do ignore them, under the theory of what the hell, we're only Wikipedia?) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Paradise Regained printed in Dublin

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

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

WikiCup

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

I'd certainly be interested. Alan16 (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I have already got 2 FLs to write and a GA, so its ok with me. ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 15:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Christ Stopped at Eboli

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

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

Forge

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

FAR Looming - Oroonoko Needing Citations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Last of the Masters" peer review

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

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

WP:NOVPR

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

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

As I Lay Dying

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

Light novel covers

Hi,

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

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

Why. The cover images are present, Only to illustrate the novel article as they are copyright "fair use" material so any other use is deprecated.! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

grrr my stupid Angrish :(

Let's reformulate the question: is a category similar to Category:Manga covers is warranted for Light novel covers. --KrebMarkt 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Public domain books

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

Related Bot Request for Approval

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

Nathaniel Hawthorne

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

Plot summary length at The Lost Symbol

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

Vanity Fair (novel) needs cites

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

Spoiler warning discussion

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

Requested move

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

Blue Is for Nightmares series merge

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

Museum of Human Beings

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

"Lists of works"

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

Reviews

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

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

Anyone have an account for Kirkus Reviews

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

Resolved

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

List of characters in the Warriors novel series

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

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

List of ThunderClan cats (Warriors)

List of RiverClan cats (Warriors)

List of ShadowClan cats (Warriors)

List of WindClan cats (Warriors)

List of BloodClan and SkyClan cats (Warriors)

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

List of Characters outside Clans (Warriors)

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

Napoleonic fiction task force

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

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

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

User:Person man345 obviously does not believe so and all I know about the novel is that Agee was awarded a Pulitzer posthumously.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)