Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 8

message: I tried to improve the page for Rip Van Winkle after re-reading it and I added a character section, but I was wondering if I should also add his dog to that section. Not a character/person, but he is referred to in a relatively anthropomorphic way - a dead metaphor perhaps, but still.Zigzig20s 17:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe - you could use a sub-section ===Animals=== for such an addition. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters - pets/animals 

message: Hi. I'm working on the Uncategorized category Wikiproject. I'd like to create a subcategory of needed categories relating to this project, :Category:Uncategorised books. You could refine it or alter it to be better suitable for project needs. I also posted this notice at WikiProject Books, since they would likely find it useful too. Just a humble suggestion. :) -Ebyabe 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite happy with the idea myself, particularly if it is populated either via  and a parameter setting or a specific clone of this template. Then people have a tendency to add them. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the folks at WikiProject Books pointed out that Category:Uncategorised books was deleted sometime ago, and :Category:Books is used for that purpose. Which means not having to create a new category, but use an already existing one, and that's always nice. I guess I can start moving them to that category. Now where did I put that shovel... ;) -Ebyabe 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was and I can't really see why if we have uncategories people, uncategorized places etc etc. Anyway for us you would use :Category:Novels or :Category:Short stories. The unfortunate aspect of using these is some are legitimately in these groups and we would go past these again and again whilst trying to do the "uncategorized" bit. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New potential category inquiry 

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

message: If anybody wants to add fair-use rationales to book covers that have been tagged for deletion, there is a list of images that BetacommandBot tagged here. There are about 400 images listed. I think they are due for deletion by 18 July. Every suitable image on the list up to (not including) those beginning with the letter H have been given a rationale. I would highly recommend spending some time adding rationales, it's lots of fun ... honestly ... Bláthnaid 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Important: If you add a rational, remove the deletion tag. Otherwise, it'll be deleted anyway. Doceirias 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just did all the ones beginning with the letter H... Tedium is good for the soul I suppose. Kweeket 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The page for Matter (Iain M Banks' next Culture novel due Feb 2008) has been changed to redirect you to The Steep Approach to Garbadale. I've been monitoring the page for news on the next novel and just noticed this.
:Seems and over zealous editor fell into the trap Iain had set for our internet researchers.! Situation restored and updated. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's happened to Matter? 

message: In relation to the discussion above; in an attempt to keep up with the IFD's, Jogers and I have been working on a way to keep an updated list of various categories of images.  For the book covers, he's created this list Disputed book cover images which should be updated on a regular basis.  If this is helpful to this project, I'd suggest that you add it to the Template:WikiProject Novels announcements or similar "Things to do" notifications.  Comments, questions, etc, can be left on my user page - and the positive/constructive ones are always welcome ;) SkierRMH 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the reference above appears to point to Film related image rather than books. Nice idea, why not create it as a project subpage. Something like :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Disputed book cover images would answer I think. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing image purge of 2007

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

message: Now that God, er, Jimbo Wales has proclaimed that episode articles that don't include reams of sources should be speedy deleted (this posting which has apparently led to this TV episode going to AFD, expect a mass nomination of books and novels in the near future. Believe it. 23skidoo 02:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My god will the deletion fetish never STOP???

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

message: A novel in the Animorphs series of books has been nominated for AFD here. Remember successful deletions of this nature create precedent that could lead to other similar deletions. 68.146.47.196 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Novel nominated for AFD

message: The articles about this series of novels are currently in a very bad state. Actually, I found Fleabee's Fortune on the backlog of the Notability wikiproject, because that article had been tagged with the "importance" tag since last December. But I realized that there's a whole series of articles on books by this author - see the template at the bottom - which all share the same problem.
All the articles do not establish notability, see the WP:BK guideline: They do not cite any independent coverage about the books. Rather, they are simply plot summaries (cf. WP:NOT#PLOT). In the current state, all of them might well be candidates for deletion.
I'm posting this here because I want to suggest a different way of dealing with these articles: If some independent sourecs can be found which say something nontrivial about this book series (in-depth reviews, awards, or the like), it might be best to merge all these articles into one. They are all very short currently, so that should be possible. This article should give a brief summary of the book's contents, and then some out-of-universe content which shows why these books (as a series) are notable. 
I replaced the tag on Fleabee's Fortune with  for now, and left the other articles as they are, but as I said, the problem seems to be more general than just this one article. --B. Wolterding 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Deptford Mice 

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

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

message: A published Starcraft short story is up for AFD here. Those in the short story task force may wish to chime in on this, or work on the article in question to bring it up to acceptable standard. As I said in the novel AFD heads-up, above, the more successful AFDs there are, the more precedent against such articles. (I know nothing about this short story, so it may not legitimately be notable enough for its own article; this is just a heads-up). 23skidoo 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: status: keptDGG (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Short story up for AFD

message: The entire themes section of the article on :Adam Bede was a direct and literal copy from the account in Gradesaver, available online, & actually cited and linked  on the face of the article. Much of the character section was similarly copied.  identified material has been removed, and the person inserting it warned.  Again, number of people have edited the article without noticing. I found this one myself, and intend to continue looking from time to time. There is a characteristic writing style in study guides such as these, presumably designed to impress teachers when submitted as essays. Only the most careless of teachers would be deceived when the material is used without modification--and it looks like WP is about as careless as any. The material has been there for months. I urge people in this project to check the articles they are working on.  DGG (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent catch DGG.  It's so disappointing that people have done this.  I'll be going through my watchlist to check for this over the weekend. --JayHenry 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: The Star Trek novel My Enemy, My Ally is currently up for AFD, and has been since Friday. As of Sunday night it looks like 2 delete votes and 2 comments without votes, which probably means it'll be relisted as no consensus. 23skidoo 04:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a healthy precident at all, particularly in that we have no idea now what "was" there and have no basedline on which to build! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was basically a synopsis of the book, but it wouldn't have taken much to trim the plot outline, add a paragraph about the book publishing history, and add other templates, etc. The concern I have is that if an AFD on an undeniably notable series like Star Trek can sneak through, what does that mean for the long-term survival of articles such as The Nightmare of Black Island (a Doctor Who novel chosen at random), or any of the Simon Templar novel articles I created, many of which are still stubs? 23skidoo 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trek novel up for AFD

message: I originally started the Be an Interplanetary Spy article, and I'm planning to expand it; but I wanted to get advice before I find I put too much work into it (I am still relatively new after all).
Be an Interplanetary Spy was a 12 book series with each book having its own individually different titles, stories and characters, so should I follow a format similar to a more well known work like Xanth (with the individual book titles at the bottom as links to separate articles or stubs about each book)?  Should I put together summaries that are placed into the main series article?  Should I just put a list of titles with no explanations at all? (which would seem a shame - but I see that most of the Choose Your Own Adventure article is just a list of titles).
Anyway, I was just curious.  The Be an Interplanetary Spy series is nearly 15 years old now, but it was found in all major bookstores right next to Choose Your Own Adventure.  At the very least, I thought it was worth noting in Wiki so that people researching Choose Your Own Adventure could remember or otherwise be aware of this cousin.
Of course, I realize many reading this are slobbering at the mouth to "FAST DELETE!!!", but that's partially why I'm asking.  I'm fine if people want to later edit or add to make the article better, but I don't want to put the time into building the article if the entire thing is just going to be thrown into the garbage on a whim without a care.  It will be like I did absolutely nothing in that case; well, nothing except waste my time.
:What I would do would be to write up the series article with summaries and series reception, notability, review, etc all referenced as far as possible. Only as the article grows with more detail available for each title break out the titles into individual articles. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be an Interplanetary Spy 

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

message: I would like to have the feedback of active wikiproject members on the following. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been rewritten some time ago, but this appears to have been done without substantial input from editors who write about fiction.
Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to be a description of common practice. At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those from most novels.
This does not reflect actual practice, because Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Now there's no need for alarm, because to my knowledge, nobody is actually deleting any of this. However, it would be prudent to reword and update the aforementioned guidelines to accurately reflect how, and on which aspects, articles on fiction are written.
Please feel free to update the guidelines as needed, or direct your feedback to their respective talk pages. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also you  should include WP:BK (on books) in preference to WP:FICT. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request feedback on guidelines

message: * 27 August Dark-Hunter Series (PROD by User:Dream out loud; a novel series by Sherrilyn Kenyon begun in 2002) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the books in the Dark-Hunter Series is currently # 8 in the New York Times hardcover fiction bestseller list. Dammit, Wikipedia needs more articles about a "former Sumerian god, now a casino owner" :p Bláthnaid 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like a rushed little affair!. I don't know the articles but I would generally council more considered writing to head off this type of deletionist approaches. Referencing, wikify the article make use of a style and pattern guidelines, ensure notability statements are in articles. etc.:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark-Hunter Series has been undeleted and tidied up. Hopefully a knowledgeable person will be able to expand it. Bláthnaid 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) &mdash; 27 August

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

message: * Camp Confidential (PROD by User:TexasAndroid; "Camp Confidential is a series of young adult books...by Melissa J. Morgan.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what you are trying to do here but the proposer is right there is "nothing" the assert notability here on these articles - first defence here is to correct this. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall I stop posting notifications to this WikiProject?  If so, I will note that at User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals.  Understand, I am not in a position to improve these articles myself — I am acting in the capacity of messenger. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Any article prodded can be recreated without needing to ask permission. --WP:PROD. Just write a good one. Obviously, whoever prodded it before will be on the watch, so make sure its really a better article, or it will certainly be sent to AfD. DGG (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point on this is that, to most folks, any work done of the article has to be done again. As an admin, I can see the deleted efforts and can tell that there was some work done in hopes of rescuing the thing, but because it seemed no one placed a note regarding same to the PROD page -- or went to the next step and challenged it to AFD -- it was automatically deleted (I don't know if the account that deleted the article was an actual person or a bot). I have never recreated a PROD'd article after deletion under the relatively new rules, so I don't know if it's actually within my admin authority to countermand the completed PROD process. This is different than recreating an article from scratch which, as you say, can be done anytime, unless a "protect against recreation" has been implimented. 23skidoo 12:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]])

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

message: well after reading the information i found out about go as alice i was quite disappointed although i had my own suspicions as to wether or not this diary was actually real my reasons for this are because a lot of her experiences with drugs seem "fake" and over-reaching....for an elaborate description of the effects of drugs it just seemed all too fake on top of that a 15 year old can be mature but not quite that mature but still i loved this book it was the most amazing book i have ever read besides crank...i cried and by the end of the book she seemed to have matured quite a bit and learned very important lessons that most teenagers choose to ignore i say this only because i myself am a 16 year old teenager and from my own experiences i think i should write a book too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.55.61 (talk • contribs) 
:Not quite sure what article improvement point you are trying to make here. If the article is broke fix it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that this is just someone that read Go Ask Alice in school and has now decided to go and write their own memoir; with no real bearing on the Novels WikiProject. Gizzakk 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Probably a newbie who just clicked on the first link he/she saw on the article's talk page. 23skidoo 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Go Ask Alice" 

message: Is there a searchable online database (besides Amazon) where I can type an author and find all the books they've written? BTW, if there is such an animal, would y'all consider a "Resource page"? :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Library of Congress doesn't miss much: Library of Congress catalog and neither does | WorldCat, but of course you can't buy those books.  If you're looking to buy and can't find it on Amazon.com, Alibris.com is probably your best bet. --JayHenry 01:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not to buy. Just to be able to list significant ones on an author's article.  I don't like Amazon for many reasons, but one of them is because I have to click on each book to get any useful information for an author.  I'll take a look at Worldcat and LOC.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone have more ideas about a resources page. Might be good to go beyond what this editor had in mind, i.e. general reference locations and tools for narrative article editing. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we already have the guidelines pages, I would suggest adding something that links to sites such as Amazon and Alibris, as well as something like the New York Times bestsellers lists; a decent site for book covers would probably be worthwhile as well, however it seems that there has been more than a little drama concerning the fair use of such images as of late. Gizzakk 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource? 

message: I havn't been around for a good while, but back when I was pretty active, there were several extensive automated lists of articles that needed specific things, such as infoboxes or categorization; I was just wondering if whoever was producing these lists is still around, or if there would be someone else that felt like picking up the mantle; they make it much easier to go and poke around and help out a bit without getting neck-deep into starting a brand new article. Gizzakk 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For examples of automation that I've run across recently see User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals#WikiProjects with "fully automated" solutions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link you provided seems to deal with how to tag articles so that projects with automated lists could be notified of a pending AfD through the bot they use; thanks though. Gizzakk 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True - there are references to two bot implementation examples.  What automation method did Eagle implement? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I have no idea; I checked the old lists and couldn't find a mention of it, but if you went and checked his edit logs you could probably find it. Gizzakk 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: -4 September 2007-(Interested in Mystery/Fiction): I would like to see a category for a genre-type that I refer to as "Plausible Fiction[]." Plausible fiction is a genre-type that I attach to my work Code of the Sphinx©  [],. The genre-type[], I believe, is marked by an Author's use of facts based on actual research and reference[],. However, the milieu[]: A  time-frame of which can only be observed for past events (i.e., Zeitgeist)[], in which the Author sets his novel, is or may be, entirely fictional. An Author may use this method in order to perhaps postulate a theory, such as in Dan Brown's[], "The Da Vinci Code []."
Respectfully,
N.L. Ross 18:06 []
:What do other think of this one! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention it sounds kind of self-serving. : / María (críticame) 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite right, Yllo—this is a complete nonsense genre.  The literary equivalent of WP:FRINGE.   And of course such books have always existed!  There is nothing new or interesting about an author that does research (nor is there anything "plausible" about the works of Dan Brown).  When such works are set in the present they are literary realism; in the past they are historical fiction. --JayHenry 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plausible fiction