Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 1

message: Tables are great for conveying tabular data. But they are a waste of space when it comes to listing the title, author and date of a novel. This information can be (and usually is) conveyed much more concisely and readably in the first sentence of the article. This leaves plenty of room on the screen for the rest of the article. Trivial details about the book like the ISBN for some important recent edition of the book (if there is such an important edition) can be left for the References section or somewhere similar at the end of the article.
Compare:
:Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded is an epistolary novel by Samuel Richardson, first published in 1740.
with:
Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded
Genre
Epistolary novel
Author(s)
Samuel Richardson
Illustrator(s)
none
Series
none
Publisher(s)
various
Publication date
1740
LCC
PR
DDS
813
ISBN(s)
various
It should be clear that the first form conveys just as much information as the second, is easier to read, and leaves more room on the screen for the article. Gdr 12:59, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
I find your comments below totally convincing, and your comments above quite convincing save for your declaration that "the first form conveys just as much information as the second".  This first form drops an essential bibliographic item:  The publisher.  It also neglects two other essential bibliographic items, the place of publication, and the edition but then the Infobox format also neglected these two.  You can have several editions in a single year, and when books are issued on a global market (something that existed more than a century ago as Kipling could witness) they have several publishers in the same year.  This is why it is crucial to state the publisher, and the place of publication (and a mention of a 2nd or 3rd edition, etc. when need be) to know which edition or version of the book you are talking about in an article.  For instance, Kipling saw pirated versions of his works appear in the United States (which had no copyright laws protecting foreign authors back then) and he saw more or less well copied versions reproduce themselves endlessly.  An article has to state exactly which text was used because there is no international body deciding which is the "real" one.  AlainV 03:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I exaggerated, sorry. (But I don't think it affects my argument. This extra information can better be given in the article.) However, I am not sure that it is crucial to identify editions. An encyclopedia article rarely goes in for the kind of close reading that requires a particular edition to be identified. When there is something interesting to say about different editions, then these editions should be mentioned, but when there isn't much to say, is it really necessary? The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English doesn't say anything about publishers or edition except in a few cases where it's really important, such as Shakespeare's plays. Can you say more about this? Gdr 11:31, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
The Cambridge guide and other such books are put together by professional scholars who are expected to know intimately all the editions of the works upon which they coment, even if they do not mention this in the body of the article.  Wikipedia is put together by just anybody and giving a minimum of bibliographic information on the actual book (or books) that was consulted to write the article helps establish authority as well as trust.  It also makes it a lot more easier to look up things later in a bookstore or library, than if only the title and author and year of publication is given.  We also have to consider that Wikipedia is a super-pedia going into much more details according to the whim of each editor-author.  Take for instance The Hobbit and English-language editions of The Hobbit.  They offer an extreme level of bibliographical detail.  Then take a look at David Starr, Space Ranger which is at an intermediate stage. Now suppose somebody writes an article on "Pamela, or virtue rewarded".  If just the year of the edition actually consulted is mentioned (in addition to the year of the first edition) then we have a better idea of the foundation of the article.  If just the name of the publisher and place of publlication is also added then we are certain of the basis, of the actual text used to start the article. And the text varies so between an 18th century edition and a 20th century one! No more is needed for a minimalist approach. AlainV 04:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Kevin here. A lot of info that fits in a userbox (like various ISBNs, or info on the novel's original title, language, and country of publication) would be awkward in the article's body, but more importantly, it will be omitted without the infobox template. The information included in Wikipedia articles on novels varies widely from book to book. Infoboxes provide some measure of standardization. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infoboxes considered harmful

message: The article template is poor. Few articles about novels will be long enough to need subheadings. The subheadings just get in the way of the text and constrain the article.
Compare:
:Erewhon is a satirical novel by Samuel Butler, published in 1872. Erewhon (an anagram of "nowhere") is discovered by Higgs, the narrator, on the far side of a chain of unexplored mountains in a remote colony. His description embodies Butler's attack on the mental and moral stagnation and hypocrisy he found in England, and on his society's attitudes to crime, religion and the rearing of children. Higgs escapes from Erewhon in a balloon he constructed himself, accompanied by a girl with whom he has fallen in love.
with
:Erewhon is a satirical novel by Samuel Butler, published in 1872.
:1 Setting of Erewhon
:Main article: Setting of Erewhon
:Erewhon, on the far side of a chain of unexplored mountains in a remote colony.
:2 Characters in Erewhon
:Main article: Characters in Erewhon
:Higgs, the narrator
:Arowhena, a girl
:3 Chapters of Erewhon
:Chapter 1 of Erewhon, "Waste Lands"
:...
:Chapter 29 of Erewhon, "Conclusion"
:4 Reviews of Erewhon
:
All I can say is, thank goodness so few articles use this template. But a few do, so it's worth stopping this nonsense before it causes any more harm.
For an example of how this issue affects real article, compare The Man Who Was Thursday with headings  and without . Without headings the whole article fits on the first screen, with headings almost none of it does. Gdr 16:40, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Not to mention that a listing of chapters is hardly necessary, let alone creating articles for each chapter. --Dalziel 86 11:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article template considered harmful

message: why is there no Interpretations section?  certainly it would be acceptable if a Reviews section is deemed appropriate? mnemonic 06:59, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
I agree, regarding that interpretations should be put in as "what the book was believed to mean", major themes, or impacts on society.  Reviews by specific critics or newspapers are trivial and unimportant. Uber nemo 03:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
:There are many novels which will need an interpretations section, at the very least to fulfill the notability criteria. I'm not sure 'interpretations' is the best term though. We do need a section to describe themes, etc. Also, my vote would be to put reviews as a subsection in the External Links section. Wikipedia's not going to be hosting any reviews, so that seems to be the obvious place for them. --Dalziel 86 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations?