Talk:Newbery Medal

message: It might be a good idea if the list was ordered in the opposite direction (i.e. most recent books first). This would correspond to the other children's literature award lists. Driekie 07:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Deborah-jl Talk 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I'm not very good at wikipedia yet, but I was wondering why the Newbery and Caldecott prizes are in a different order. :) Could someone please fix it? Kimuchi 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: Would adding honor books make sense as many publishers include those medallions on the cover, suggesting prestige attached to those as well? Barkeep49 01:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newbery Honor books are listed in the Newbery Honor article. -- Oddharmonic 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, you people what are the requirements to recieve a Newberry medal?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.10.210 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honor Books 

message: I propose moving Newbery Honor page to here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are not so different. The honor books are like a shortlist from which the winner is chosen. It would be a long page, though. Any thoughts on formatting the very long list of books? Or resolving the difference between the current lists? KennyLucius (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't help. Since it is your proposal to combine the pages, I thought you might have thoughts about the list format. Some indicator of the Medal winner (as opposed to the Honor Books) will have to be included. I prefer a table, but making it a useful sortable table will be complex because sorting by year may not order the winner/honor books correctly. Is a sortable table necessary?  Also, there are a great many red links among the Honor Books, so it will ugly-up the Medal page, which currently looks quite nice. KennyLucius (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be that combining the articles into one will encourage some of those redlinks to turn blue.  Joyous! | Talk 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I'm looking at the organization of the article, and it definitely looks like it's made from 2 articles merged together. Tables aren't really my strength, so this might not work, but...what about arranging the lists by year, so that the Medal winner, and the honor books appear together? For example:
2009  The Graveyard Book      
*The Underneath by Kathi Appelt (Atheneum)
*The Surrender Tree: Poems of Cuba's Struggle for Freedom by Margarita Engle (Henry Holt and Co.)
*Savvy by Ingrid Law (Dial)
*After Tupac & D Foster by Jacqueline Woodson (Putnam)
I don't know how to make the medal-winner stand out from that, though.  Joyous! | Talk 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Why not cut and paste the text from here to your personal soapbox and work on it there before releasing it here?  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might want to look at how other children's book award lists that have "runners up" look, and go with whatever the majority is.  There's something to be said for consistency.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like consistency, but I can't find any other pages about children's book awards.  I think the Newbery Medal is THE award for children's books.  I was working on the page about the Caldecott Medal.  Over there, the honor books are on a separate page, and I'm trying to figure out how to bring the two lists together.  I like Joys' layout above.  It reminds me of the way editors have listed the Oscar Awards, but I REALLY like the sorting tables.  If I sort by author, print the list and take it to the library, then I can find a bunch of great books in no time flat.  All these books are shelved in the library by author, but by last name.  This table sorts by first name.  Anyway, if we add another column that indicated if the title were a medal-winner or a honor-book, would that let us sort like that, or can you only sort by one column at a time? -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  They have a table like this over at NHL Foundation Player Award.  The names of the players appear first-name-first, but they sort last-name-first.  they appear to achieve that by typing the names in a template like this   which appears like this:  .  What do you think? -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  I created a table similar to the one on this page for the Odyssey Award.  There are a lot fewer winners and honors on that list so it seemed like an excellent candidate for an expirement.  Anyway, I added a column indicating if the title was a winner or an honor book, and it turns out that the reader CAN sort by both year and citation, but its a little tricky and it requried some expirimentation.  I don't know how many readers are really that finiky.  I am, so I spent the time to figure it out.  Do you think a similar table would be preferrable here? -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it!!!  Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  I found the other children's book award lists.  There's a WHOLE category of different children's book awards.  Cool! --ErinHowarth (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I found the highlighting confusing and had to come to the discussion page to discover what the highlighting meant. Now that I understand what it meant, I have no issue with it. However, can there be an annotation on the article about what the highlight means? Such as "Winners of the Newberry Medal are highlighted." 216.188.249.219 (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: This is mentioned, but when I followed the link, I couldn't find any-thing like it at the linked site.  Is it legit?Kdammers (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the children's choice awards is a real list administered by the International Reading Association; unfortunately, when I went looking for the list (I like lists), I discovered that it is only available to subscribers. --ErinHowarth (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: children's choice award

message: The controversy section should be transformed into a "Reception" or "Critical reception" section, incorporating views from a wide spectrum. See WP:Criticism. hgilbert (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware of some views from RS that speak to the benefits of Newbery?  To me the positive reception of the award are covered in the lead's last 3 sentences and are thus already covered.  I have no problem renaming the section, though I'm not sure how fully I agree with WP:Criticism. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm kind of stunned something like The Graveyard Book, which I'm reading now, would be given a Newbery medal.  When I was a kid, it seemed like winners of the Newbery Award were always preachy books about religious or ethnic intolerance and generally set in one of five milieus: Biblical times, early America, slavery/Civil War/Reconstruction, a patriotic war such as the Revolution or Wold War II, or the American South in the early 1960s.  The one exception is if an Asian-American  wrote it, it could be about prejudice against Asian-Americans in a place where Asian-Americans have high concentration, otherwise, the oppressed group had to be blacks, Native Americans, Jews, or accused witches.  My teachers always frowned on my preference for fantasy literature (usually old stuff by dead people like L. Frank Baum), and finally a work of fantasy won!--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: i rewrote including some of the parry & repost to the Post. more of a kerfuffle than a controversy. Accotink2 talk 13:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "controversy" section 

message: I came here researching awards, hoping to compare other selection processes to that of the Hugo Award; unfortunately the Newbery page is unclear on the ALA process, despite this being one of the most famous literary awards.  I found a page ( http://blog.schoollibraryjournal.com/heavymedal/2008/10/21/more-on-the-newbery-nomination-process-2/ ) after googling, but someone better associated with the process could explain it much better than I.  Wyvern (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination & Selection Process? 

message: An image used in this article, File:Newbery Medal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Newbery Medal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: There's a useful article here with background on the controversy, that shows it goes farther back than people tend to realize. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8058/librarytrendsv44i4i_opt.pdf;jsessionid=995C2BFE9EA0617CD917242980249E50?sequence=1 I don't have time to deal with it, but someone else may want to. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: From 2000 the American Library Association has the Newbery Medal for children's lit and the Michael L. Printz Award for young adult lit. (I haven't checked how closely they match in other respects.) Our Printz article says "teens" in the lead and "ages 12 to 18" in the details, which approximates junior/senior high school students.
From 1922 to 1999 there was the Newbery Medal alone. What "level" were the winning books? In particular, did the medal recognize some books that librarians recommend or libraries stock for primary students and some for senior high school students? 
From another perspective, what has been the impact of the Printz Award on the books considered for the Newbery Medal, especially on the Newbery winners? Are some books considered by judges for both awards? How many 20th-century Newbery winners would be considered only for the Printz in this millenium? Did a perceptible shift toward younger readers during the 20th century motivate the Printz award? (Michael L. Printz Award#History is essentially silent.)
P.S. The British Carnegie Medal (from 1936) remains alone covering books for children or young adults. Recently I have visited WorldCat library catalogue records for dozens of winners. Some records include "senior high school" recommendations. I don't know that any winning book is or was recommended for primary students (grades 1-3 in my US experience that predates middle school). There is virtually no overlap with the Nestle Smarties Prize category 6-8 years (for illustration, without knowing whether that Nestle category focuses on picture books). --P64 (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Children : young adults

message: (continued not much later) The ALA now has awards specifically for children's "information books", the Sibert Medal from 2001, and young adult "nonfiction", the YALSA award for Excellence in Nonfiction for Young Adults from 2010. (Let's hope for a permanent name soon.)
The latter must be irrelevant here. Regarding the Sibert Medal, however, my remarks "Children : young adults" pertain as well to fiction and information books, not to mention straight nonfiction. Does the Newbery focus entirely on fiction from 2001? Was there increasing focus on fiction during the 20th century which motivated the Sibert? I see that the inaugural Newbery winner was a nonfiction tome and I suppose there were several "information" medalists, which I understand to include fictionalized history. --P64 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction : nonfiction 

message: 0. See also #Redlinks (2009–2010 and 2014) --whose indentation I adjusted for readability and where I interjected (2) and replied at the bottom.
1. Does anyone know how many of our bluelinks are WP:REDIRECTs or unusual WP:PIPEs, with targets that are not the suggested biographies and book articles? If we have maintained this table adequately, there are no biographies and book articles for those bluelink writers and books. For instance,  is one redirect.
2. Some bluelink titles may be redirects to book series articles. For Joey Pigza Loses Control, a redlink surprising to me, we do have the book series and fictional character article Joey Pigza. About half what it does is ID the series contents with two bluelink and two redlink titles. (We have one WP:STUB and one .)
a. If people consider redlink titles useful because they communicate that we have no corresponding book article, and sufficiently useful to retain (see section #Redlinks), then I suggest a listing such as this:
: Joey Pigza Loses Control (see Joey Pigza)
b. There may be similar cases where this is valuable:
: Redlink (sequel to )
--P64 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writer and book links 

message: I really have no idea what this sentence is trying to say so I pulled it. Can anyone else figure it out? HullIntegrity (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence makes no sense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Newbery Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110003635/http://www.ala.org/alsc/sites/ala.org.alsc/files/content/newbery_manual_9Oct2009.pdf to http://www.ala.org/alsc/sites/ala.org.alsc/files/content/newbery_manual_9Oct2009.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224041910/http://www.reading.org/resources/tools/choices_childrens.html to http://www.reading.org/resources/tools/choices_childrens.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi there . I see you've been editing this article over the past couple of days - welcome. I am not sure if you're aware but this article recently became a Featured List, meaning it went through an in-depth review. As a steward of this article, obviously wording can be tweaked and I don't get too riled up about most MOS things so I don't think the period being outside the quote is correct in this case but I would suggest that the current winner not be in the LEAD. While using the as of template is a good way to monitor content which could become dated, in general the table is summarized and introducing something which could become outdated, as opposed to most of the article which is rather timeless, makes me uneasy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notifying me. As this list is going to be featured on the Main Page in a few weeks' time, I thought it would be expedient to do a little bold copyediting of the lead, mainly in terms of grammar and MOS compliance. I did think that it would be beneficial to readers to add a line indicating the latest winner of the award, which I feel is still worthwhile on the TFL blurb. As you were the FLC nominator for this list, I'll defer to your judgement concerning the article's content. Regards. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.S.: I just realised that you did undo my first edit regarding the addition of the most recent winner. If I had noticed this sooner, I would not have reinstated my edit as I later did. I apologise for this. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the LEAD 

message: "As of 2020 no change has been made."
The source cited here is from 2009. It tells us nothing about a proposal made in 2015. It certainly does not tell us whether anything happened by 2020.
Yes, it is nearly impossible to cite a negative. The addition actually say that a Wikipedia editor is not aware of or was unable to find any indication that the change was made.
What we know is that a proposal was made in 2015 and there was some reaction to the proposal, both for and against. That's what the article says.
Maybe it was voted down. Maybe it was ignored, never to be heard of again. Maybe it went on the back burner for a while and is now under active consideration. Maybe it was passed, with an effective date of June 1, 2020. Maybe we missed an article mentioning any one of these. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"But it's important that we tell readers..." Is it important that we tell readers that we guess nothing happened? If it's important, a reliable source will discuss it. Until we have that, we have an unsourced claim. Yes, it made it through an article review. At that point, there was nothing/no one challenging the claim. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual that I cited is the most recent manual. Its lack of inclusion of change is evidence that nothing has changed in the same way that it is evidence that there are 15 members on the committee (committee composition being something that has been discussed but not changed since the manual). Your maybes are all possible but as someone who acts as a steward for this article I can and will suggest that there are not RS we're missing that say nothing has been done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are presenting original research: "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research..." A manual from 2009 cannot directly and explicitly say anything about a 2015 proposal and the status of that proposal in 2020. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware of the peril of original research. I think you're getting hung-up on the 2009 part of that manual. Instead it is more proper to refer to it as the current manual . The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that nothing cited to that could be done in the present tense and that's just not the case. I'll update the reference right after hitting submit on this reply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  you've gone silent and so I want to reach out again before interpreting your silence as assent for restoring the concent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing a source for what you want to add. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , The source was already in there, I just made it explicit:  (current source 8). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing a negative