Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 3

message: Someone needs to remove the ((cattoolarge)) tag from this category, it is down to 400 articles, from an original 1500... the congrats to all who assisted in sorting these... Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book stubs category 

message: I have nominated this article for Peer Review Wikipedia:Peer review/Grendel (novel)/archive1. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grendel - Peer Review

message: Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxIncomplete talk page, as deals with more than that page.  The first part, though, the "written section" that is referred to is the written section at the beginning and at the top of the InfoboxIncomplete page. 
Moved section:
Just curious, I suppose, but why was the date arrangement changed for the book infobox used for the novel project (henceforth referred to as Novel infobox) from the book infobox template (henceforth referred to as book infobox) (Moving from August 23, 2005 to 23 August 2005)?  And are we supposed to use the Novel infobox or the Book infobox, because the two infoboxes are not the same (more information requested with the Book infobox, and date is in Month Day, Year mode).  
On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxIncomplete page, in the written section, the documentation leads to the Book infobox documentation Template:Infobox Book, as opposed to the novel infobox documentation (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxCode (though that says book infobox and not novel infobox). And the notes on how to use the box leads to the article template instead of notes.
Looking at the Tools section in the column, Book Infobox leads to the Book infobox template pattern, but at the top of the column, in the information section, Book infobox (pattern) leads to the novel infobox pattern.  
Hopefully the above is understandable.  I've been slightly confused on which style box to use, and which date pattern to follow. Oh, and I didn't go ahead and change anything on my own, because, I'm not sure what is correct.  Or, for that matter, that there actually is any problem as opposed to it being currently correct, and I'm just misreading the pages. 
In addition: I believe that an example, like at the Infobox documentation page, would be quite helpful.  I have been putting the Hardcover, Paperback and the like wording in initial capitalization, (like in the Master and Commander infobox, which I've been somewhat using as an "example"), but those particular words have been edited to initial lowercase.  I don't particular mind what pattern we use, but it would be helpful if there was just the one, and an example were to be placed in the template section. MikeBriggs 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok one issue at a time, what make you think there are 2 infoboxes. I know of only one . :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the link found at the top of the column on the project page (the column that starts: "Novels WikiProject") titled  "→ Book infobox (pattern)" that leads to what I've referred to as "Novel infobox" above.  Now go to the section of the column titled "Tools".  Now click on Book infobox.  Those two boxes are almost exactly alike, but not (one has book weight; and they have different documentation).  Now click go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxIncomplete page.  Click on documentation [Template:Infobox Book]], that leads to documentation and code that is different that the template used for both Master and Commander (which I've been using somewhat as an example, mostly the dates are differently arranged) and Infobox needed template, which also has the dates differently arranged (I guess the only thing different is the date arrangement, and that extra "size_weight" line; and whether or not Hardcover/Paperback is supposed to be capitalized on the media_type line, or not capitalized). I'm sorry, I'm probably not wording my confusion clearly enough. MikeBriggs 15:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I see. There is "one" Infobox, Book. This is being used by all number of people, mostly from the :Wikipedia:WikiProject Books and ourselves :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, but it is one infobox. The generic documentation is on the Main Template page :Template:Infobox Book, with more detail behind it on the discussion page :Template Talk:Infobox Book, this needs to describe "all" possible uses and practices of the template. "Our" documentation for it's use is as part of the article pattern template :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate and a simple cut and past example for "just" the infobox :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxCode ready to be filled in "in situ". Does that help or confuse further. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Size_Weight was left out from "Our" pattern as we (I mainly) thought it was a bit unnecessary. Also you will find that we don't include "Subject" as that is meant for Non-Fiction books. WE instead use "Genre". So Full template documentation and our "patterns" will of necessity be different. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Capitalisation, Hardback or hardback. Me being slack I think. We should discuss the ideal and stick with it. Also bear in mind that the link should be direct and that links to "Hardcover", which I hadn't noticed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think I see.  Thanks.  The Hardcover/Hardback/hardback issue came up because a book I was watching (and for which I updated/added infobox had the Hardcover/Paperback section changed to hardcover/paperback - removed capitalization).  I've added an example to "our" documentation. If you think it doesn't belong, or doesn't help, please remove it. Thanks for the help.  The overall Infobox uses capitalization for Hardcover, Paperback on the media_type line, so I put them in as Hardcover/Paperback in the example. MikeBriggs 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must dash but I have just tweeked the "non key" binding references to lower case, leaving the main as upper. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Looks good to me. MikeBriggs 16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novel Project, Templates and wording

message: We at the Military history WikiProject have been trying to clean up the strucure of :Category:War somewhat (our working draft, if anyone is curious); would there be any problem with moving :Category:War novels under :Category:War art rather than under :Category:War directly? Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really an objection, but I do think that "art" doesn't quite cover it if you start to include novels, could we consider a change to "Art and Literature". My thinking here is that there are two very different basic definitons of the work are one very general which covers anything which is not really a science (which I think is the one you are thinking of), and one which implies quite strongly in many the visual arts. At a stretch some might think to include music. So if this option is not appropriate, maybe a compromise of "War arts" might imply more than the visual. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections to renaming the category from me; but you would be in a better position to decide what the best name is.  How are novels usually categorized?  Do we have any top-level categories whose names we can mimic? Kirill Lokshin 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at the content of "War art", I think the change to "Art and Literature" would be best. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War novels 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxNeeded has a new list of Stuff to Do, if infoboxes are your thing. Thanks to Eagle for compiling it. Her Pegship 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel Infoboxes needed list 

message: I'm a n00b in this particular project. Despite looking around, the answer to which/how many editions to reference in the infobox hasn't been adequately answered for me yet. My first effort is improving the article on Arrowsmith (novel). Details on the first edition are clearly hard to come by; details on every edition that has appeared since then are just as hard. So, for example, in the Media tag, do I list every medium this book has ever appeared in, or the medium it originally appeared in (hardback)? Other parameters are more manageable because there aren't that many editions of this particular book. Thinking about public domain works, though: do I list multiple sizes, weights, and ISBNs?
And of course you are welcome to comment on Arrowsmith once I actually write a non-crappy replacement. :) Spamguy 06:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Preference should begiven to the first edition - if not available give the first major edition for the nation of origin. If unavavilable a HB and PB edition of major note. Not a full list, that sort of this should be listed in the "Release details" section in the body of the article. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book editions 

message: I have modified the instructions inside the template area for creating a new article to be more comprehensible, but I could simplify them greatly if the template were simply divided into to three pieces:
* Copy Template 2 (the main article) into a new article
* Write and save your article according to the directions therein
* Copy Template 1 (the infobox template) to the beginning, fill in the missing available information and delete the rest; save
* Click on the Discussion tab of your new article to create a Talk page for your article; insert a WikiProject line (from the single line in Template 3 (could this be automated?);save
* Edit your main article and remove the "redbox" line (the one telling you to create a Talk page); save. Alernatively the redbox part could be excised completely from Template 2   Modus Vivendi 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a new novel article 

message: This is sure to be one of the most visited articles on novels in wikipedia, but surprisingly it's in a sorry state. Currently a poorly organised collection of random tidbits of information, the article doesn't even contain a plot summary! I think this is an ideal venue to showcase the quality of our project. I'm currently short on time, so some help will be appreciated. Because of the book's special stature, it can't be made to conform to the template article exactly, but it will be a good idea to mix-n-match and give the article a complete overhaul. Thanks. Loom91 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This I definitely agree with; this article is a mess; and whatever it needs it needs a LOT of - we are going to have to do some preliminary planning for this and figure out what to keep, add, and throw away - I for one think that that whole references/ see also bit at the bottom could use some scaling down and the whole body needs a total makeover. -- Gizzakk 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll start by giving it the infobox. And we can go from there. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have a subpage (see Talk:The Da Vinci Code) for work related to this effort. It may be used for coordination, talk and drafting. I created it to keep the clutter off this or the articles talk page. Loom91 07:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Da Vinci Code]] 

message: WikiProject Arts 
Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage. If you think you can help, please join us!
HAM  18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An invitation to all members of this project

message: the sub page of this project "/infobox_needed" seems to have been superseded by "/NovelsWithoutInfobox"-- if nobody objects I am going to change the link under "work in progress" in the project box. Matt Kurz 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: they are doing different things, the first is a manually generated list and can pick up articles intelligently, the second is automatically generated and is liable to faulty and incomplete selection. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: infobox_needed

message: As far as possible, I suggest using a first-edition cover in the write-up, or a fascimile of the opening page. At least it would look more authentic, and certainly more interesting, than any tom-dick-or-harry cover on the front. Mandel 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had assumed this was the general consensus and that most people in fact did this.  Was I wrong in assuming this?  If that is the case we are going to have to go through and change an awful lot of book covers. -- Gizzakk 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the norm - just make me think though we are working blithly that way and I don't think it is documented anywhere. I will have a look at our pattern templates and guidelilnes and see what we need to add. Thanks for raising this, there is always room to improve. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Would an embedded review of the change in covers over time be interesting, relevant or desired in articles on novels? some authors or publishing houses have shown particular care and pickiness over the choice of cover design, and this grows more interesting when such a novel is reprinted and repackaged many times over several decades. such discussion may illuminate changes in design with respect to literature. however, this may be dead weight for articles covering most novels. Lee.shoe 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an interesting idea to me - what type of novels had you in mind. You could try mocking one up, either in your userspace from an article or actually change one as you propose and let us have a look. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It can't always be possible to have a first edition cover available. If you look at the 52 novel articles I have created for the Simon Templar series, as of today only about a half dozen have first edition covers available. The rest have come from various other editions. I see no problem with doing this so long as it is clearly stated that the edition illustrated is not the first edition. 23skidoo 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't, we should just try for the first edition as a base. We should then attempt as original as we can get. If not a generally well accepted, widely available recent cover. All this is a little subjective I know. But basicallly I completely agree with you. I don't see any response to the original proposal by User:Lee.shoe though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 06:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use first-edition cover

message: This might already be covered, but is (Book) or (Novel) the preferred means of disambiguation? I've been looking through the catagories and it looks nearly interchangeable. Does one help our bots over another?--Muliebris 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are a novels project so we deal in Novels and they are written up as "The Novel Title" by preference, but if there is a disambig conflict then "The Novel Title (novel)" is used, with lower case "(novel)". If there is already one of those something like "The Novel Title (Author Name novel)". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Book) vs. (Novel) in disambiguation

message: What's the best way to incorporate the ISBN into a novel article? In the text, in a "See also" or where? All the novel articles that I looked at didn't actually include this basic piece of information...Stevage 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "Infobox Book" which has a field for ISBN. (see :Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/InfoboxCode and then the "Release details" section included in :Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate. Anymore questions, did you have particular articles in mind? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: First edition information is prefered, so if this is available then my view is no it shouldn't be included in the Infobox. However a release history section is specified for near the end of the article call "Release details" of example see. Master and Commander. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBN

message: It might be good to link to this WP from the various novel stub categories... Stevage 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of them have a reference to it, at least on the "Talk" page there should be a {t1|NovelsWikiProject}} notice on each one. If not there you could place one, are you interested in contributing to the project? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think most of the novel stub templates are phrased something like this article on (insert novel stub name here) is a stub, please consider expanding and check out Wikiproject:Novels.  Or something like that anyways; I know that is how I myself found the wikiproject.  If you think it would be worthwhile to have a link in the heading if you feel like adding it. -- Gizzakk 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I was just wondering if there is any precedent for renaming articles that are under their non-english names.  This often comes up with novels that were written in different languages and then re-released in english, and I did not know if we were supposed to leave it or change it or what.  -- Gizzakk 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again no clear answer, I personally would say we should work to "English" it is an English wiki after all. In other words we should prefer English titles if the work is available in English. Exceptions would probably be, A) where the work in not available in English, B) where the work is "primarily" known by it's original language name. Hope that make sense to you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, thats what I was asking and thanks once again. -- Gizzakk 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an example of B will be Les Misérables. Loom91 12:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original French name is used because the novel has always been known by that name in English, because English speakers can guess the meaning of the word, and because no precise English word of the same meaning exists. Modus Vivendi 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-English Titles

message: I have noticed that although we have all these categories for stubs, hardly any of them are actually used and there are nearly 200 novels just categorised as novel-stubs. Consequently I am planning on going through each of these stubs one-by-one, dropping an infobox in and filling it in as far as data on the page allows, and categorising it where possible. If anyone thinks I can actually be doing something more useful along similar rote lines, please let me know! --JennyRad 11:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be a good idea to add the novel categories while you are at it, and  www.alibris.com  and www.amazon.com are good for any info that is missing. and dont forget to add the NovelsWikiProject and Novelinfobox incomp templates to the talk page (unless you fill out the entire infobox.) And thanks for helping! -- Gizzakk 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not my area of specility, the wiki articles on both subject would probably help. Put simply I take, Horror to mean, having Horrific subject matter, particularly with supernatural themes. Gothics I take to be dark themed with character of the victorian period. Some stories / novels are both. I'm sure others will know different. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first gothic novels date from the 1760s, so they're hardly victorian ;-) See f.ex. The Castle of Otranto --Thf1977 09:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: oops, but you know what I mean - "of the period". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When is a stub not a stub! Large issue, all rather subjective really, should be based on significance of the Novel, and probably the ammount of basic text written. Is there a "Plot introduction", "Plot summary", "Characters in xxxx", Full set of appropriate Categories, and is the article Wikified. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Stubs etc

message: Should we generate a list of novels that have little to no representation on Wikipedia?
Mikesan230 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a page, reachable from the right hand side navigation template, call :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticlesNeeded. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed articles

message: i think someone should make a page with a list of novels that are not represented on wikipedia, for whatever reason. then if it was linked to other novel-related pages people could see the list and add whatever stuff they want about books they've read. it sounds obvious, but i dunno if anyone's done it yet Pxw324 13:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a page, reachable from the right hand side navigation template, call :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticlesNeeded. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needed articles 2

message: Wanted to start beefing up the characters in the Jane Austen novels and so created a Jane Austen Character template. This is my first one, so wasn't sure how I implement it?plange 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me, although I would split out the caption in the manner of :Template:Infobox Biography. It tends to look nicer in my view. Also I would make use of this one one article and ask if people approve before doing loads of work on them. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed New Infobox template 

message: Two questions:
1) For translated novels, is it possible that the infobox can in any way be modified to contain a slot for original language publication date, and original language? If this is thought necessary, anyway. (I think it probably is.)
2) Covers: First edition covers... is this rigid? I see it's definitely better than slapping any old cover on an article, but, particularly with things such as ongoing series (see Ian Rankin and the Rebus novels), which often have similarly formatted covers, is it permissable to forgo the first ed. cover? Personally, I think the uniform look of the series of Rebus covers is much more pleasing as it is than if each entry was adorned with the first edition cover? To be frank, some old covers are pretty dire. Can there be exceptions for asesthetic reasons?! (Especially when an image of the first ed. cover can be placed somewhere else in the article?)
3) This also leads me onto the problem of UK v. USA editions... publishers, pages, differ across the oceans...which do we stick in the infobox? Is there some kind of uniform concensus on this (or do we list both? Or do we go for: If the book had US publication first, that's the data we use, and vice versa for UK publication?) 
4) I've been filling in quite a few infoboxes lately, and coming across these issues (not to mention the completely insoluble problem of categorising the many subgenres of crime fiction...)... I don't want to make up my own rules as I go along if there's already accepted concensus on this (though if there isn't, I'll be perfectly happy to!) Barbara Osgood 18:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: whole number of questions here, ok one at a time. 1) This is an English language encyclopedia and the emphasis should be on that language. I would go with details on the original language edition but in the text of the article. The introductory paragraph and "Release details" section are useful for this for instance. 2) First edition is prefered, but I know what you mean, sometimes however the old covers are better and the latter examples of a series adopt a "worse" style and consistency produces a less pleasing result. No easy answer on this one, however I think consistency is important, but the first edition cover could well be include later in the article. 3) I think here the principle here is the "first" edition (earliest country) is the important one, other info is extra. Personally I try to collect the "original" and that heavily cited on the web. (usually 2 - no more than 3). 4) Crime novels, you might need to explain exactly what your problems are. We have a page for this type of debate, over at :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Novel_categorization. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers, translations 

message: Hello, have created an infobox for characters in Jane Austen novels. Let me know what you think and if I've left anything out and what my next steps should be. The template is Template:JAustenCharacter and I've created a Talk page on that template. Thank you! plange 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone have any feedback? Here's an example in use Mr. Bennet -plange 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you get no more comment I would just go with it as you have it. I personally think it is fine. Gust put it on a few prominent characters and see if you then get any more comeback. E.G. headlining characters such as Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox for Review

message: Question on Infobox's.
On The Amber Spyglass I removed Northern Lights from the infobox Preceded by section just leaving The Subtle Knife, but another editor put it back in noting that it also preceeds The Amber Spyglass.
What's the standard procedure on this? I've already made a comment on the Talk:The Amber Spyglass.Grey Shadow 09:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, do you know the nature of the challenge here. Sorry wind back, there should be "one" title preceeding and "one" title following. Having said that the basis of the before and after can be a cause for dispute. Normally where authors write descreet books the sequence would be order of publication (or in some cases writing). However many author write "series" of books where the plot follows a particular timeline. This is the normal sequence for these types of novels. In other words plot chronological. There should not be 2 preceeding novels. Does that help! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about the novels in question. It's listed as a Trilogy on the page.Grey Shadow 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the publication dates, generally these will indicate which order a novel comes in the series, unless it is noted as a prequel; whichever novel immediately precedes the novel in question should be included in the infobox, and the other should be included in the same area in the infobox of the "in-between" novel.  hope that wasnt too confusing. -- Gizzakk 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Having said all this the particular novel sequence appears sorted now anyway. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Preceding Book 

message: I think there ought to be category for foreign editions -- maybe just the languages, or maybe more than 1 line: one for languages, another for titles. unless someone like John Irving who's translated into 50 languages makes this too unwieldy.  Just a suggestion to mull over. Hayford Peirce 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for joining the project, I notice you are somewhat of a veteran Wikipedian. Anyway, back to the subject. I'm not sure where you were thinking of this but this is unlikely to be a subject for the "Infobox Book" template at this is already very full and also the focus there is the "English" version of the novel., but with references to source language if in translation from a foriegn original. Their is obviosuly rom in the general text of any article to include this type of information; however one other section comes to mind. In the :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate there is provision for a "Release details" section which is best illustrated by and example (Master and Commander#Release details which although is doesn't currently include foreign translations, it could. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  foreign editions 

message: Okay...I want to post my comments on a book...is there an appropriate place (in the article in a separate header, perhaps?) to post comments? If not, can we start doing that?
Bob 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean your personal review of it? I think that isn't part of WP's purpose (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you mean something else, personal views are not to be included in Wikipedia (although that is difficult to achieve) both for personal input and policing the input of others. THE place to this type of thing is the Userspace (i.e. your own) and even then there are legal and ethical limitations. I imainge a limited amount of opinion could go on the talk pages of an article but only the mildest of forms. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain a second...I believe that since we are doing an all-around profile of the books, we should also include reviews...they really can say more sometimes than the facts, whether it was enjoyable or not, or some sort of 4 or 5 star rating system or something. Bob 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, but we are not allowed to include personal comments or reviews. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. What we can do is search out some reputable literary review, printed book, web based, journal, newspaper, radio, TV etc. and "quote" from those. We must give verifiable references to each one we use. (see WP:CITET) This is highly recommended. It is just that most either don't get round to this or baulk at the amount of work envolved. e.g. the one I put in at Master and Commander#Literary significance & criticism this is referenced as well. Does that help. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn it...thanks for the quick answer, even though it wasn't what I wanted to hear... Bob 14:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional universes. I know the article is a little ungainly, but surely it has its place here. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional universes to be deleted? 

message: For anyone who is interested, over the last week or so I've created individual articles (with infoboxes, of course) on the complete Simon Templar (aka The Saint) and Modesty Blaise series of books (yeah I don't really have a life...). Given the wide fanbase for the two characters, I feel the books are of wide enough interest to warrant individual articles. Most of the articles are, at the moment, rather stubby since I don't know enough about the books to type of synopses and all that (though I have read the complete Modesty Blaise series I need to re-read them again; and I only recently started reading The Saint series in order). All are tagged as being part of the Wikiproject, so anyone who is familiar with these two series of books, I invite to come over and add your knowledge. Both character links, above, include lists of the series. In the case of Simon Templar, a number of books (particularly later ones) are also missing cover images. 23skidoo 02:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two series of articles created

message: I've come across :Category:1990 mystery novels. Are we going to do more of these subcategories, or should it be merged into 1990 novels? There is only one novel in it at present. Grey Shadow 09:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up on this. This one came from the ether! No proposal I know of to add this sub-division. Nominated for category deletion. May need to come back later but at this stage proabably not. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This first one is proposed here Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 14. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I found another one at :Category:1965 mystery novels Grey Shadow 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Proposed its deletion also at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_21. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category year genre

message: Is there a standard size for cover images, or at least a preferred size? PeregrineV 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just a prefered size, this one appears to work well though, but stretching can be an issue with images. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 200 px seems to work well. Too much smaller and it's hard to read smaller text without having to click it. I've uploaded about 70 book images over the last 2 weeks and I've been going with 200px. I was under the understanding that 200px is also the set size for the infobox, too. 23skidoo 03:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I just save the image after setting it to 200 px? PeregrineV 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And when referencing the image in the image parameter do  :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend doing that rather than trying to save an image at 200px. That's a bit hit-and-miss and sometimes I find the image quality suffers a bit. I usually save the images a bit larger than that (still within fair use low-res parameters) so if someone clicks on the image they can see a bit more detail. See, for example, the image I have at Boodle (The Saint) (one of my favorites because it's a cool old pulp fiction cover from the 1940s). BTW for some reason I just noticed the example I gave is showing as a high-res image, however I specifically scanned it as low-res...weird. 23skidoo 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: When uploading a novel cover, is their a fair use low res size that's allowed? I've come across covers ranging in size from 
the large  to the small . 
What is allowed? I've made them both 200px as per the infobox norm. Grey Shadow 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I can find nothing the says more than High resolution is discouraged. However I personally say that a very low res image such as on the right stretched is really "unfair" use. But that is a different meaning of "Fair". 200px seems about the right size visually for cover art in the infobox. Generally smaller 150px would appear about right for other images throughout the article (even other edition covers). :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the image is too high resolution, it will be tagged with . Also check the third Fair use policy: Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images. -- ReyBrujo 18:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover images

message: Hello, I see this is the first time that I've come on to the forum. I've been really busy lately. Anyway, there is a novel article that I think should come under project attention. The End of the Affair by Graham Greene. I think the article should be about the novel, and go into detail. There should be links for the film versions. Contact me at my user page for further questions and advice. Au Revoir Afghan Historian 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In great need of our help this article, I have added it to the General Novels section of our worklist. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Worklist. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The End of the Affair

message: (Please let me know if this is a /GeneralForum topic).
I understand that their are 2 lists for novels needing infoboxes, one autogenerated and one manually generated. However, it seems the autogenerated list is only for Mystery novels. Was wondering why this is, can it be changed, and if so, how?
If I understand this correctly, 
*this list needs to be manually updated - Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxNeeded 
*and this one is auto generated Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/NovelsWithoutInfobox.
<BR> Mostly trying for understanding here, as I do a lot of clicking in confusion until I find what I think is the right list. Thanks PeregrineV 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is a GeneralForum topic. this location is just for discussion of the main project page itself. Having said that. You have the understanding correct. If you want to change the category for the auto list you need to get some agreement with others working on the list and then the new category can be submitted to the generator. Alternatively you  can help us work through the current list and we can discuss the category when we have got through what we are currently working on, "many hands" etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: InfoboxNeeded and NovelsWithout Infobox

message: There's been some discussion over what goes here, what the definition is, etc. etc. and no consensus. I move we merge its contents back into :Category:Series of books; defining the order in which a series of books should be read is more workable in a list format anyway, not a category. Please comment on the talk page or at Cfm. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we missunderstood the category here, this would be for articles on the sequences. So the article are likely to contain the list of what makes up the series / sequence. No individual novel articles should appear here in this catagory. No I don't think the catgeory should be merged. I might support a rename to "Novel series" if others thought this necessary. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the category is full of individual novel articles. If it should be full of lists, or articles about novel series, then would someone please revise the description for it? (Kevin?) I'll be happy to help move the articles once it's clear what the category's for. Thanks. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded here as I think, having been nominated this is where the main debate will be taking place. I can see you are trying to tidy this. And it does need it! If we need to do plenty of sorting work you know you can count on me to do the grunt work!. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great job, I can support that. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding novel sequences or series, I have a question.  There are probably a huge number of novels in series (I'm thinking primarily detective/mystery fiction here) which may or may not individually merit individual pages but certainly merit at least one page on the series itself.  I am myself a particular fan of Carole Nelson Douglas' "Midnight Louie" mystery books, and I note that neither she nor the series have any discussion here yet.  I intend to correct that, but am curious how the rest of you think that a page discussing a series of novels, like hers, should be constructed.  And I know that this may have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't found that discussion yet.  Also, on a side point, how if at all should the plots of movie or television tie-in books be discussed in wikipedia?  I remember one of the novels about The Man from U.N.C.L.E., I believe by David McDaniel, was probably the only place to have told how T.H.R.U.S.H. was supposed to have developed from Professor Moriarty's organization.  Should that be mentioned in the Man from U.N.C.L.E. article or not?  I welcome any responses here.  Badbilltucker 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Fiction sequence WikiProject but it appears dormant. So we can respond here I think. All I can really suggest is that the focus should be on the series as a whole rather than being a collection of information on the individual novels. Also a personal view but any spoiler style information should ideally be kep to the individual articles trying to keep the series article spoiler free. What I find sometimes happens is that once there is sufficient material in a series article the individual article can grow from outtakes from the series. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great questions all. I'm with Kevin on the series article; an overview of the series with links to individual title articles sounds appropriate. As for film & tv tie-ins, as someone who's knee-deep in that project, please keep written and filmed versions in separate articles, with a link and maybe a brief reference in the main series or novel article. I would definitely put the T.H.R.U.S.H. tidbit into the MFU article (with a spoiler warning of course); that's a great bit of trivia. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Novel sequences

message: How should omnibus books be handled? They are generally a bundling of multiple novels under one cover. I would think that each novel could receive it's own entry, and that a (book) entry would contain a summary and link to the (novel) entries. Any policies or existing ideas for how to handle these?  For example, I have one entitled The Chronicles of Narnia, but each book is actually it's own novel. Thanks  PeregrineV 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again a personal view, however based on the practise observed here, Omnibus editions can be included in author bibliographies, they can be referenced in articles on the individual novels that make up the collection in the "release details" section. If the series that make up the collection has a justifiable article of it's own (ie. the Chronicles of Narnia) the omnibus edition can be referenced in the "release details" section of that article. Omnibus editions normally do not warrant their own article! There are always the potential of exceptions of course. Also worth noting that Omnibus collections are "not" the same thing as short story collections (which can have articles). The key being that Omnibus editions are not the prime or primary form of publication for these novels. Trust that helps! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example of an exception. I created an article for the Saint omnibus Wanted for Murder because I discovered that for decades this was the only American publication of the novella collections Featuring the Saint and Alias the Saint which were originally published separately in the UK. Given that later American editions of these two books indicated that they were originally taken from Wanted for Murder, I decided it warranted a special case. Otherwise, I agree that omnibus books generally shouldn't have their own articles unless perhaps they contain unique or previously unpublished material (for example although one does not yet exist I would support an article on the William S. Burroughs compilation Word Virus because it contained some material that was never before published). 23skidoo 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one suggestion for another sort of exception—books out of print in the original format. e.g. Leo Frankowski wrote a series known as the Cross Time Engineer series (See Conrad Stargard instead) and has a habit of getting into tiffs with his publishing house. Subsequently, the option having expired or whatever, Frankowski went to Baen who was glad to pick up the popular series, and re-issued it (there are now two sequels not listed) as an Omnibus of the first three and last two shown, plus the sixth as well as three or four other HC books that I know of. Then he got into a tiff with the late Jim Baen, and... but I digress. My point is the omnibus title is still in print in HC and paperback, and the original books are not. Seems to me an short article on that title is in order, with apropo links (Main and sub-article or some such) in either direction. Such would share something in common with a series article, if there is no such.  Cheers! // <B>Fra</B>nkB 04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I would agree with the exceptional case cited by 23skidoo, this one I don't. Wiki is not a directory of in print publications. It is an encyclopedia, which in the context of literature and novels is to record notable novels as originally conceived by the author and as originally released. There is long president for this approach which even means that Dicken's novel and Conan-Doyles novels which were original published as series should be mentioned in that publication format first. The only reason that they are not covered issue by issue is that these are entirely incomplete narratives in that form and it would be impracical to treat them seperately. There is no problem with an article per individual publication, recording the original novel release and in the ==Release details== section itemising the fact that it is now available in an omnibus format. The omnibus edition is not (generally) a notable item, the original publication is! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Omnibus

message: Was wondering on the appropriateness of including jacket or cover blurbs to the books, if possible. PeregrineV 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An even more personal view! Cover blurb in general frowned on here, But! What I would say is that if clearly indicated in the "full inline reference" that is encouraged for all quotations then it is permissable. But this should be to augment the article, not to be the only content as you often see in poor quality stub articles. As a rule I would tend not to use them, but if they are used that should be clearly marked and treated like a special type of quote. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, they're part of the copyrighted material, so use sparingly. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Actually, informed legal opinion is they are outside the copyrighted work proper. See  this where I'd asked by email and posted the answer of a lawyer/Admin many of us knew by a previous user name, and one who does a lot of work directly for Jimbo and the Foundation. By another token, use of same is fair use, and more importantly, the owner's (is it the publisher or the author or the author of the 'blurb' or 'splash'... gets murky!) going to laugh all the way to the bank, not complain and bitch. I generally agree it's a better idea to not use them, but there are occasions where those and other words in the author/editors own words are a much better presentation of the knowledge we're trying to deseminate at hand. I've block quoted forwards and prologs and afterwords extensively in the various The Grantville Gazettes articles because that was the fastest way to present material that was presentable. The whole collaborative authorship and web-synergized development of the series has been hard enough to get straight and present when and where needed. I cut the lead article down due to some complaints, and yesterday I noticed some complaints that now it's not complete enough. Sheesh! Eventually we'll go back through and get choosier about the excerpts when the material can be worked around, or looses it's immediate importance. In the meantime, the material says more about the book to our readers than I can find time to work around just now, as it does to someone browsing the shelves of the local Barnes and Nobles, or (in Baen's case) browsing the author's books on the publishers website. Issues such as this are one reason I figured Peg's idea to resurrect and resuccitate the WP:WikiProject Fictional series was a good idea. It's not like I lack wikiTasks—I spent most of a WikiYear without ever looking at a wikipedia article on a book, forsooth! <g> // <B>Fra</B>nkB 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover or jacket blurbs

message: I have been working on these novel articles to add infoboxes with various details and notice that most if not all make use of very POV text and are not very wiki in english style. If there is any one of us that is familiar with these novels or is otherwise in a position to help please have a look at a rework. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[S. S. Van Dine]]'s [[Philo Vance]] stories 

message: Supposing one has a pet favourite author who was moderately successful in her day but has largely been forgotten (in my case, D. E. Stevenson) ... the page about her is currently entirely stubbish. I have recently been using Ebay to great purpose and acquiring stacks of her books. For the time being, I'm not going to write great screeds about any of them, just get things started - would I be best off, in people's opinion, writing the stuff as sections of her page, or creating actual stub pages for each book straight off? --JennyRad 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No hard and fast answer to this. Are you likely to get much written quickly, write one at a time as separate articles. If they are part of a series you could place short summaries to each novel in the series in a series article. Or if you are just about to write a quick line or two, place those temporarily in the author article. Just don't write tiny articles which are no help to anyone. These will have people jumping all over for small amounts of information. Doesn't help much, but there it is. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start with augmenting the author article a bit more. At least give it a decent bibliography. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating Pages, or Not

message: Tag added to give a home for the WP:1.0 co-operation mentioned. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version_1.0_Editorial_Team_cooperation

message: I'm a little confused about the assessment process.  Does the discussion at the talk pages mean that I can tag articles stub, start, or B-class without waiting for the assessment process, and should I?  If not, should I use some other tag to identify stubs?  Thanks, TheronJ 15:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - this is a brand new facility for our project so the "Assessment Department" page isn't ready yet - so use your best "objective" assessement hat and set to. It is not cast in stone so others can rework as needed later - welcome aboard the assessment train. Also another parameter of "importance" will follow soon. See Talk:The Lord of the Rings for an example, but it is not functional yet. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment question