Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 10

message: Brideshead Revisited is short on cites, especially the apparent personal opinions in the section "Motifs and other points of interest"  -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brideshead Revisited]] needs cites 

message: If you all hadn't noticed, the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) listed by Baen Books and affiliate Webscriptions has essentially no chance of returning meaningful information from the  search template (or DOI website ...e.g. DOI: ). Contrarily, some older Baen DOI's may work, or once have worked but  I haven't found one that does. 
So shortly before Christmas, I looked into this when frustrated again by an attempt at verification and invested in a phone call to find out why. The result is that Baen DOI's simply aren't DOI's at all, in the sense of being a registered unique ID number, and if I understand things properly, Baen's is further using "DOI", a registered trademark (a surmise), improperly. The most recent Baen DOI's are in fact, the ten digit ISBN of the printed work, a different registration system.
In any event, on the Ring of Fire series books I'll be editing systematically to avoid the confusion to our readers and substituting the template  as a prefix where we document their listed (non) DOI. Webscriptions itself, who produce the e-published versions in the multiple formats have pretty much eliminated the DOI term on their webpages, using instead the term "SKU". I further suggest that any cited reference based on their content include that prefix after the  template, should that page be the information cited (e.g. checking a electronic copyright, but not wanting to by the book—the SKU page is open content and costs nothing! On the other hand, one cannot read content, but catalog!). I see no way to cure the potential confusion and "conflict issue" originating in that Webscriptions and Baen attach different "linking identifiers" (and url's) for what is content generated from the same digital source file. Webscription SKU's are simply catalog numbers, and I suspect but can't prove the same source files are in play when down loading or previewing, albeit through a webpage "Frame". There is a distinct difference in looking through a frame reading on line, say at a book on the Baen Free Library, and one which is downloaded. In the latter case, the e-copy title data is available... in some cases, it isn't when read online. 
In that sense, the titlepage information from a SKU# accessed and downloaded page from webscriptions will and should contain the Baen DOI (unless the page is a Baen e-ARC, or "preview sampler", which by definition is a temporary webpage or downloaded version!), but this is surmise, and untested beyond a small sampling. I haven't verified to my own satisfaction versus CDROM versions yet either... (Sorry- my interest was more on making an ordered table and "sense" of actual dates of first publication, regardless of formats.)
Baen CDROM copies like their website seem to carry the same DOI as one can access online via the Baen website, but this state is based on a small sample at the moment, for I've done no systematic cross checking. I have checked enough to know NOT to rely on a Baen DOI as an official registered DOI, and that is the message. DOI's and what Baen calls DOI's are as Apples and oranges.
===The Template:Baen DOI===
Consequently, I've written the "handle this explaination" template to be multipurpose, three modes of which can be used as boilerplate, plus the 'main mode' usage as a pre-fix. The prefix mode generates a link to the template text, thus giving the same explaination if the link is followed. The "visualized use" there is in infoboxes. 
Two of the three boilerplate modes are seen in these edits:
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1633_%28novel%29&diff=prev&oldid=181687616 
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baen_Books&diff=prev&oldid=181685972
The parameters '1632', 'indent' and  are tested so that specifying either '1632' or anything as  displays the text as modified by specifying 'indent'.  One of the two, the novel article 1633, uses indent and one does not. The indent mode uses a bullet prefix and a smaller font. Both use the '1632' switched logic, which merely adds the last paragraph about the Grantville Gazettes... presuming such a paragraph would be both useless and a total non sequitur in books or series by other Baen authors like honorverse, I wrote the template so it must be asked for. The indented version makes sense as a lead in to document the three versions extant, as in the 1633 article, which uses double indentation to set off the separate releases.
Best regards, and happy New Year! // FrankB 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baen Books DOI's 

message: Consequently, I've written the "handle this explaination" template to be multipurpose, three modes of which can be used as boilerplate, plus the 'main mode' usage as a pre-fix. The prefix mode generates a link to the template text, thus giving the same explaination if the link is followed. The "visualized use" there is in infoboxes. 
Two of the three boilerplate modes are seen in these edits:
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1633_%28novel%29&diff=prev&oldid=181687616 
#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baen_Books&diff=prev&oldid=181685972
The parameters '1632', 'indent' and  are tested so that specifying either '1632' or anything as  displays the text as modified by specifying 'indent'.  One of the two, the novel article 1633, uses indent and one does not. The indent mode uses a bullet prefix and a smaller font. Both use the '1632' switched logic, which merely adds the last paragraph about the Grantville Gazettes... presuming such a paragraph would be both useless and a total non sequitur in books or series by other Baen authors like honorverse, I wrote the template so it must be asked for. The indented version makes sense as a lead in to document the three versions extant, as in the 1633 article, which uses double indentation to set off the separate releases.
Best regards, and happy New Year! // FrankB 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Template:Baen DOI]]

message: As some of you may be aware, about 12,000 images were tagged for deletion because of missing or incorrect fair use rationales last week. There is a list of tagged book covers here, if anybody would like to add a few rationales. Please start from the bottom of the list, because other editors have started from the top! There is a template  that can be used. There is a good example of the type of rationale to add here, and there are more guidelines here. An image needs one rationale for each article it is used in. If the book cover is used in a list, gallery, or in the article about the book's author, don't add a rationale because book covers usually can't be used in this way.
Also, if anybody has received tons of warnings about their image uploads on their talk page and needs help working through them, please let me know and I'll help out with adding rationales as best I can. Bláthnaid 12:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure anyone would have problems with the "fixer" adding a  after having made the necessary changes. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book covers with disputed fair use rationales 

message: I'd like to start up a task force for 19th-century novels. This would cover the works of novelists such as Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoy, Victor Hugo and a great deal many others. It would also encompass Romanticism, Regency literature, Victorian literature and early Modernism, as well as region-specific literature of the period (e.g., British, American, French, Russian). Any thoughts? Cheers. – Liveste (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: probably overdue. Any help you need let me know. If can gain some support prior to launch so much the better. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th-century novels task force 

message: ... in order to join the WikiProject Novels? I've been invited but have no idea what to do. I am new here and would love to help out if I can. Thanks. Katie1971 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do I need to do anything in particular... 

message: What relationship is there, if any, between the painting of "More Watership Down" by Frederick Morgan and the book "Watership Down" by Richard Adams ? 
It is interesting to me that the themes seem to be common, although the artist would have rendered this work many years (roughly fifty, as best I can tell) before the book. It is mere coincidence or is there a connection ? I would appreciate any enlightenment.
Sorry, the above was my posting. Appreciate any responses. --66.235.91.49 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the similarities are just because both are named after Watership Down, Hampshire which apparently does have a lot of rabbits. --JayHenry (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watership Down by Richard Adams 

message: Despite the best efforts of those trying to rescue book cover images being targeted by the Deletionists, some are slipping through the cracks. If anyone happened to archive the book cover image for The Interlopers (novel), could they please reinstate it? Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some images were accidentally deleted by an admin trying to deal with the huge backlog. The image will be undeleted soon :-) Bláthnaid 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back. Apologies for the mix-up. Bláthnaid 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks once again for your efforts. Considering how many thousands of images have been flagged in the last few weeks, I didn't really see this as a mix-up more than a case of one falling through the cracks. Although I had contributed many of the book covers for the Matt Helm series, I don't recall if Interlopers was one of them, as many were contributed by another user who left Wikipedia over many of the same issues that I have expressed frustration about. 23skidoo (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put all the Matt Helm books on my watchlist, so you don't have to worry about their images being deleted. Bláthnaid 16:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Interlopers needs its image back

message: I just was looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Articles-Images in danger of deletion and I see a number of books that have been listed there have now been deleted. I hope folks are paying attention to the page. Currently a release from Grove Press entitled The Delivery Man is up for AFD here, the apparent grounds being that since the book hasn't been published yet (it's due out tomorrow) it therefore is NN. So what does that mean for books such as Devil May Care? 23skidoo (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Delivery Man appears to be a first novel. Devil May Care is by a very well established award-winning novelist, with many notable works, and about which there are important published sources even prior to publication. DGG (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also "important published sources even prior to publication" now applies to The Delivery Man and it is now published. Film rights being sold with numerous reviews, most on balance positive suggest certain rising notability. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I might not have made my point clear. The attempted precedent here is trying to establish that any novel not yet published is NN, even if reviews, etc. exist. That's my concern. In my opinion this particular novel meets notability requirements based upon its publisher alone, first novel or no. But my concern was if the precedent that yet-to-be-published novels are NN was set, then that would make it difficult to sustain articles on upcoming books, regardless who the author was. 23skidoo (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My view would be that not yet published would be naturally "less notable", however the notability rises commensurate with the notability of the author responsible. So a debut novel from a "new author" (i.e. one not notable for anything else) would be harder to establish  / determine. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it goes both ways, too. If this were 1938 we might have seen the same argument being made regarding a book called Gone With the Wind. Since Wikipedia guidelines and policies change with the weather these days, perhaps this no longer applies, but my understanding from reading past Wikipedia guidelines is that books and novels are considered inherently notable so long as they aren't self-published and have wide distribution, in which case the Grove Press connection is sufficient. Perhaps the rules have changed. Now, if this were a debate over whether the author warrants an article, then that's a different thing, although being published by an international publisher would seem to satisfy that, too. 23skidoo (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD challenge page needs attention - new nomination today

message: The ongoing debate over The Delivery Man (Novel) has taken a new twist. It survived AFD, but now someone has posted to its talk page suggesting that the article on Joe McGinniss Jr.. the author, be merged with the novel article because, in an editor's POV, the author isn't "independently notable". I'm opposing this idea. I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. If someone feels an author is NN enough not to have a separate article, then delete the article through AFD and make it a redirect to the book article. But turning an article on a novel into a combination novel article and biographical article is, in my view, a very bad idea. 23skidoo (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinarily bad idea! If published in such a way the author is surely notable enough for such an on-line "non-paper" encyclopedia. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm not going to cry bad faith or anything, but I am starting to get a little suspicious over what I'm starting to interpret as a vendetta against this particular novelist, given the AFD and now someone is trying to wipe his article out. Then again, I know creating articles is going to be getting more difficult around here before long, especially if things like restrictions on TV episode articles, for example, actually come into effect. Imagine having to merge all of a particular author's books into one article simply because no one has written a "secondary source" about something like The Saint to the Rescue. 23skidoo (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging bios of allegedly NN authors with an article on their work

message: Nausea (novel) is currently in DYK.   After more cleanup, I will soon be submitting for GA. Any and all help, suggestions, comments will be greatly appreciated.  William P. Coleman (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK -- Nausea

message: As has just been pointed out to me, there is apparently a deadline of sometime in late March for all "bad" images -- including book covers -- to either have a certain template added or be deleted. Basically, from what I understand, the image tags are no longer considered viable (why still use them, I ask?) and it's no longer considered acceptable to just put a line of prose like "This cover copyright 1929 Harper Collins, scanned to illustrate the article on the book in question", etc. Now each one has to have a template that states the patently obvious over and over again. Anyway, presumably once that deadline arrives there's going to be a mass deletion of images that the bots never got to and that didn't have this digital placebo added. As I've stated before, I've given up trying to rescue my uploaded images as the rationales and formats I used were perfectly fine at the time of uploading and unless Wikipedia pays me for my time I'm not revisiting them everytime someone decides to change the rules. I'm obviously not the only one as several book cover images on my watchlist (that I didn't upload) have been deleted because the original uploader either got flooded with bot messages and never saw the notification or chose to ignore it. The Castle (novel) is the latest casuality. There are a few editors who are willing to take the time to help rescue many of these images, and good on them, but I imagine there are many more that will be missed. I guess the bottom line is if you've uploaded book cover images -- especially prior to this time last year -- and you are concerned that they remain on Wikipedia, you'll need to take time out to jump through the image police's hoops before the end of March otherwise you'll have re-upload them again. 23skidoo (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A note about image deletions

message: I'm thinking that the Westeros article should be nominated for Good Article status. Are there any objections? AlmightyClam 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I might not be quite as skeptical about the prospects as 23skidoo above he does make some good points. verifiability and non Original research are everything here. This article smacks of WP:OR throughout. It needs plenty of work to make it acceptable to GA. By all means go for it don't let us put you off. One other thing the Map although nice, might by copyright and also doesn't give much information at the scale it is. Numbers of smaller sections for the detail might be better. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I wasn't planning on submitting it. I've never even edited the article. I just thought I'd see if anyone wanted to, after seeing it and thinking it would pass GA status. Apparently it wouldn't. Ah well. AlmightyClam 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should be clear that I don't think it's impossible for this article to get to GA or FA. It just needs a major amount of work to reduce the OR and in-world content and bring it in line with the current standards. I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from trying. But submitting it as-is wouldn't work. But if there are people with the knowledge (and sources) to expand this article, I say go for it. (Definitely sources: I saw one article get FA -- I wish I could remember what it was, but the list of references was almost as long as the article itself!) 23skidoo (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westeros 

message: See debate on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Book_reviews. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: Just wanted to say Hello to everyone. 
Much to read and learn here, I'm sure I will enjoy ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.75.124 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello all I'm new here ! 

message: I propose creating a task force for cleaning up articles related to The Clique series by Lisi Harrison. None of the articles are very well written (i.e: POVs, grammer, spelling, page format, wikistandards) and, while I've been trying to clean them up, I'm going to need some help.Intentionally I meant to start this as a WikiProject: The Clique, but I figured that since it's such a narrow topic, I should just form a task force for it and- as you all know- I need atleast 5 editors behind me on this to start it up. Any one who wants to join should contact me on my talkpage. Thanks! Yours truly, Broadway4life155 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Laudable aims and we will aim to give as much help here as we can. And yes (too right) it is a narrow field. I doubt if you will get too much support for a WikiProject or even a task force. These are meant for truly major fields of interest and likely to sustain interest over time. Even the most well thought out projects etc often fail to maintain that. Having said all that, do raise you concerns here and we will see what we can do to assist. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is enough support I'm happy for one to exist here and be supported by the project. Just my caution was over the speciality of the interest and the level of initial and ongoing support. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm all for a Clique Task Force and will happily be the first person to sign up! :-) For An Angel (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Clique Series" Task Force 

message: The Tom Holt sci-fi novel Here Comes the Sun (novel) has been listed at AFD, apparently on the grounds that since it is a stub, it is therefore a NN subject. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. I urge Wikiproject members to a) state your opinion in support in lit-stubs at the AFD discussion here and, of course, if you have knowledge of this particular book, please expand the article. 23skidoo (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another AFD-based precedent potential

message: I have tried to concentrate all literature requests at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature. All links from other pages should now point to that particular page. However, it is still a mess. For example, it is still mainly ordered alphabetically according to the authors' first names. Their are frequesnt mispelingz of authors' names and bok titels,  and lots of requests should have been made somewhere else rather than there.
If some of us could go through that list, or parts of it, just once or from time to time, we would help improve making literature requests and could also sort out better what articles are still missing here at Wikipedia. Please have a look at it. Thanks in advance, <KF> 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts/Literature]] 

message: ===  An election will be held in the month of april, look over the candidates by clicking on this link ===
I am proposing that an election should be held, where a devoted board of members is elected to govern the project for an entire month, or longer as the situation may dictate. DangerTM (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly all for this. If the interest can be gained - it may help engender more project "ownership" from our member editors. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for the idea if such a board of directors might actually have some influence with the Wikipedia community at large on issues such as whether book cover images should be allowed or articles on novels that haven't been the subject of scholarly study. 23skidoo (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, essentially the governing body would cover all issues that are brought to light on their talkpage, which would also be the place where the elections would be held. I would think that it would consist of three members, or maybe a representative from each task force, (short stories etc) and one from the main project. Each task force would conduct a separate election, where they would put forth two candidates to the main election, where the whole project would elect one from each, or three from the whole project, depending on the result of this discussion. DangerTM (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: On thing we will need to be clear on is the "role" of this "council". And some of the flavour of this will come from the names used. Unfortunately I don't think we will get that far with what 23skidoo would like to see although as a contributer of image that have been massively binned for little of no good reason, I have loads of sympathy with his views. Back to names I think the name should be things like coordinator or administrator (with maybe "lead" added as a prefix - as WP:MILHIST. These type of name are those that emphasis the cooperative nature of wiki that we are aiming to enhance. As far as powers go they would be entirely subject to the standard wikipedia, rule, policies and other procedures. Wiki administrator and whatever "super administrators" are called still have the real powers. This would be entirely for internal WikiProject Novels promotion, cooperation, encouragement, with some smaller aspects of intraproject arbitration perhaps. Again look at WP:MILHIST for examples of good practice in this type of thing. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you, except on the front of the title, that should be better phrased, like president or something, not to make it so that the user is segregated from the other editors in the project, but so that people identify that that user has the power, and they should go to that person for help in any regard. But what kind of powers should this council have? That should be another outcome of this discussion.DangerTM (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I was in a bit of a grumpy mood when I posted my comment ... but I do feel that such a council should have among its mandates the job of keeping track of these sorts of things. Images are one thing that could be seen as beyond the scope of the project (either they're allowed or they're not, and obviously a lot of different topics use images), however I do feel the council should play a role in any future policy-setting with regards to setting, for example, a notability threshold for novels, because whether I agree that such a threshold should exist or not (my position is a novel published and distributed professionally is inherently notable) the fact remains I'd rather have someone from this project playing a role in making such decisions rather than a disinterested party who might only considier "serious literature" (i.e. Poe, Hemingway, etc) as worthy of Wikipedia. A council would be able to put forward the consensus of Wikiproject members in a more convincing way than an individual editor who might be dismissed on his/her own as inclusionist. 23skidoo (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we all agree, then why are we still discussing, someone post in the news letter that elections will be held to vote in a president and council. If we do that then more people will join so they can become president, a high profile job if you ask me. DangerTM (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the main problem is not to get involvment with an election, it is deciding how the heirachy will be set up, I think that one president, and three other council members who the president answers to would be fine, then the president should choose his cabinet, or the people he or she trusts to help him or her out during the term. DangerTM (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having the president's whole 'cabinet' that he chooses might be going a bit too far. Do you really think that's necessary? ~ Bella Swan 13:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think a scheme a little bit more informal would be in order. These people (council) even if voted for like some form of government will not get past the basic cooperative principles of wikipedia. Three or four (maybe five) sound a good kind of number. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, four is a perfect numberDangerTM (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that still doesn't enlighten me as to how I would go aboutg setting up an election If anyone knows how to set up an election, contact me on my talk page. DangerTM (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Contacted on talk page as requested. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election 

message: I am proposing that an election should be held, where a devoted board of members is elected to govern the project for an entire month, or longer as the situation may dictate. DangerTM (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly all for this. If the interest can be gained - it may help engender more project "ownership" from our member editors. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for the idea if such a board of directors might actually have some influence with the Wikipedia community at large on issues such as whether book cover images should be allowed or articles on novels that haven't been the subject of scholarly study. 23skidoo (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, essentially the governing body would cover all issues that are brought to light on their talkpage, which would also be the place where the elections would be held. I would think that it would consist of three members, or maybe a representative from each task force, (short stories etc) and one from the main project. Each task force would conduct a separate election, where they would put forth two candidates to the main election, where the whole project would elect one from each, or three from the whole project, depending on the result of this discussion. DangerTM (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: On thing we will need to be clear on is the "role" of this "council". And some of the flavour of this will come from the names used. Unfortunately I don't think we will get that far with what 23skidoo would like to see although as a contributer of image that have been massively binned for little of no good reason, I have loads of sympathy with his views. Back to names I think the name should be things like coordinator or administrator (with maybe "lead" added as a prefix - as WP:MILHIST. These type of name are those that emphasis the cooperative nature of wiki that we are aiming to enhance. As far as powers go they would be entirely subject to the standard wikipedia, rule, policies and other procedures. Wiki administrator and whatever "super administrators" are called still have the real powers. This would be entirely for internal WikiProject Novels promotion, cooperation, encouragement, with some smaller aspects of intraproject arbitration perhaps. Again look at WP:MILHIST for examples of good practice in this type of thing. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you, except on the front of the title, that should be better phrased, like president or something, not to make it so that the user is segregated from the other editors in the project, but so that people identify that that user has the power, and they should go to that person for help in any regard. But what kind of powers should this council have? That should be another outcome of this discussion.DangerTM (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I was in a bit of a grumpy mood when I posted my comment ... but I do feel that such a council should have among its mandates the job of keeping track of these sorts of things. Images are one thing that could be seen as beyond the scope of the project (either they're allowed or they're not, and obviously a lot of different topics use images), however I do feel the council should play a role in any future policy-setting with regards to setting, for example, a notability threshold for novels, because whether I agree that such a threshold should exist or not (my position is a novel published and distributed professionally is inherently notable) the fact remains I'd rather have someone from this project playing a role in making such decisions rather than a disinterested party who might only considier "serious literature" (i.e. Poe, Hemingway, etc) as worthy of Wikipedia. A council would be able to put forward the consensus of Wikiproject members in a more convincing way than an individual editor who might be dismissed on his/her own as inclusionist. 23skidoo (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we all agree, then why are we still discussing, someone post in the news letter that elections will be held to vote in a president and council. If we do that then more people will join so they can become president, a high profile job if you ask me. DangerTM (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the main problem is not to get involvment with an election, it is deciding how the heirachy will be set up, I think that one president, and three other council members who the president answers to would be fine, then the president should choose his cabinet, or the people he or she trusts to help him or her out during the term. DangerTM (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think having the president's whole 'cabinet' that he chooses might be going a bit too far. Do you really think that's necessary? ~ Bella Swan 13:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think a scheme a little bit more informal would be in order. These people (council) even if voted for like some form of government will not get past the basic cooperative principles of wikipedia. Three or four (maybe five) sound a good kind of number. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, four is a perfect numberDangerTM (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that still doesn't enlighten me as to how I would go aboutg setting up an election If anyone knows how to set up an election, contact me on my talk page. DangerTM (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Contacted on talk page as requested. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Coordinators/May_2008 | An election will be held in the month of april, look over the candidates by clicking on this link]] 

message: Hi all. I'm seeing two different templates for noting needed infoboxes -- one is Novelinfoboxneeded and one is |need-infobox=yes -- which method is preferred? Thanks!  Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really the |need-infobox=yes one although the earlier one has hung around in case people preferred that route. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Groovy -- thanks for the clarification. So should I do some minor editing on the various Talk Pages to ensure that the information is consistent throughout the site? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: (Me again) -- For instance, what about this page, which seems ready for deletion? Novels Without Infobox  Ditto Infobox Needed Aristophanes68  (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right what I think we should do is finish working on the articles listed on these pages and also the Infobox Incomplete and Novels with InComplete Infobox pages and then drop references to them from the other pages and navigation template. The automated list idea worked very well when we have an editor who's Bot was capable of generating them (very helpful) but they just dropped off the radar. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to note missing infoboxes? 

message: The article David Alexander (author) is currently up for AFD here. Subject is a writer of science fiction and non-fiction, has several books out by major publishers, and appears to have been nominated on the grounds that the article has no scholarly sources as yet. 23skidoo (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say the article as it stands looks more like self-promotion than a neutral biography of an established author. Deb (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the case, but that's a content issue and an editor with time (which unfortunately I don't have this morning) could revise the article to bring it up to standards. As I say it needs to be wikified, but the fact this guy has books published by the likes of Avon and Berkeley pushes him into another league than someone who self-publishes or only works with small press. 23skidoo (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it was not responsible for the original editor to write a article on an author without doing at least the work of finding reviews of his books. If he's worth writing about, they will be findable. I know it wasnt you who wrote it. From the history, it looks like it may have been a PR firm. My inclination is not to help them  at it, but to let their client find out they didnt do it well enough to earn their money. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't explored the origin of the article, but I've always understood that articles are collaborative works. I could start an article consisting of the words "David Alexander wrote X, Y and Z", slap a stub tag and category on it, and essentially my job is finished. Yes, I could and should add more, but the nature of Wikipedia is others are supposed to jump in and improve and expand and article. So I don't really care if a PR firm created the article. It's up to the community to bring it up to standard, and regardless of the content of the article, it states that he has notable publications, so the article should stay and be improved by the community if the originators have abandoned it. This isn't the first time a viable article has been started by someone cut-and-pasting a biography blurb from somewhere and then others whipped it into shape. 23skidoo (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Good point. Maybe wait and see if anyone else jumps in to expand it? That would suggest that he's got SOME level of notability :lol:  Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: David Alexander (author) article up for AFD

message: Is anyone else here interested in ethnic lit? I'd love some help boosting the presence of minority authors and books! Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - although bear in mind the notability issues involved though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: * I'm trying -- I've been adding to the Lists pages authors who have been mentioned in scholarly bibliographies and trying to note awards and critical studies as much as I can. Would that be sufficient? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MELUS, anyone? 

message: I response to the above calls for an election I have established the mechanism (in the style of WP:MILHIST's version - thanks for cribbing go to them).
Those interested in standing for four positions as a coordinator should add their names on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008 having checked out the basics on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. Please make this as widely known throughout the project as you can and if you would like to stand please do. Also if you have someone else in mind please contact them and let them add their own name. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Open - Candidate entry (Open) - Voting in April (Not Yet)

message: I would like to know the opinion of the members of this project about the policy WP:NOT#PLOT. The policy seems reasonable but has been used by some editors to delete parts of plots or entire plots, rather than to add context information. There is an ongoing discussion about it. Since WP:NOT is a policy about the kind of information that should not go into Wikipedia, some editors interpret it in a very strict sense. It has been proposed to delete this policy and transfer it in the manual of style as a suggestion on how to improve an article, rather than suppress some content. It would be good if some of you can contribute to that discussion. Eubulide (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of plot summaries 

message: Looking at WikiProject Novels/Maintenance, I noticed there is no 11th Century Novel category, but I think there should be.  The Tale of Genji is considered a novel and was written in the 11th century.Jacqke (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Wiki policy about over-categorization...and a 11th C novel cat is over-categorization! How many 11th C novels are there? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And we also don't have :Category:12th century novels, :Category:13th century novels, or even :Category:14th century novels yet which one would imagine "simplistically might come first. Nice thinking, but we can go too far with these things. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with the over-categorization idea, but I did see a list with 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th century novels (there was one 15th).  That's why I thought, "Well, the Tale of Genji is missing--the first novel.   Why should this other 15th Century book register as #1?"Jacqke (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I see that the categories don't exist; someone just put them on the list.Jacqke (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why should this other 15th Century book register as #1?" - sorry I don't understand the question. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Would a :Category:Pre 15th century novels answer, it is little more specific in name. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Sounds like a good idea to me. Is there anything in the "history of the novel" article/section that could be used to explain the grouping on the Category page? You know, make it a teaching moment and all that....  Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *update: the Novel page has a section "Early Novel 1000-1600" -- perhaps our category should match up with that heading? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See what you mean we also have a "Romance, 1000-1500" section which fits the period better and on the other side a :Category:15th century novels already exists. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *But that category has only one page listed -- why not change the category title and then add the appropriate books to the newly renamed category? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite true, it has one article and two subcategories. which follows the scheme for later years. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Category?

message: I've come across a temp project set up by a university course that is writing a series of articles on novels. The class is concentrating on Spanish novels. They have, so far, upgraded two articles to GA nom. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem]]

message: Three new articles on three books (White is for Magic, Silver is for Secrets, and Red is for Rememberance) have been written.  They fall into the scope of this Wiki project, so I thought I'd let you know so they can be added.
Thanks.
kkarma 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three new articles. 

message: Regular visitors here might like to see Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page. --Scott Davis Talk 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put the current collaboration template 

message: The Election is still open for candidate entry - please do consider signing up. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Open - Candidate entry (Open)

message: As part of of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile debate the above statement has been made. If may be documented somewhere - I haven't looked too far - but it just seems absurd to me. Lesser notability than any major works yes, but to say "no notability by association" is surly patently nonsensical. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just recently come across the opposite argument on AfD: 'Schools are Inherently notable'. Both position are absurd. I like {'s test of notability which is a dead-trees standard: would the subject be listed in a specialist encyclopedia? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *But wouldn't a specialist encyclopedia be MORE likely to include less-notable material? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. Notability is the bane of Wikipedia. Both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day are 'only' guidelines. Official policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and I use that in AfD debates. It doesn't help :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability is not inherited !!?

message: Hey all. I recently got an email from a graduate student asking me for an interview about my use of Wikipedia -- the email specifically mentioned the Novels Project, so I wondered if any of you all have received the same request. Is it legit? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, but I have absolutely no idea whether is is "legit". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is legit.  I am the researcher and I just interviewed Yllosubmarine.  I'd love to have a chance to speak with you guys.--Survivalism (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Cool, thanks for posting here! Your tag line, "Survivalism," looks too much like those auto-generated spam subject lines and I really wasn't sure if it was real! :LOL: I thought, WOW those spam folks are getting REALLY specific now! :LOL:  Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, very straightforward and easy.  It was also very interesting and thought provoking, and I'm not even the one doing the research. :)  Grad students need all the help they can get, so it's for a good cause. María (habla conmigo) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Study about Wikipedia? 

message: I've removed blocked user and sockpuppet account  from Novels Project Coordinators selection process: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was easy. DangerTM openly identified the master account. In other words, it wasn't secret. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: Just FYI another novel, Different Strokes is up for AFD here. It's the old "it's not War and Peace so it's not notable" argument again. 23skidoo (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did my part to defend it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through that studying literature discussion above, and it seems that the general concensus that came out of the argument was that notability wasn't what wikipedia is after. Isn't this a direct reference to what danger was saying? He said something along the lines of, and I am paraphrasing here "It is about merit in modern society" then he said something about culture and values, surely this article should be kept. It seems that it is being deleted because it is a stub and because it was written about AIDS, I don't want to make inflamatory claims by calling anyone a homophobe, but that is what I think. I asked my girlfriend just then, and she agreed. Maybe it should be stricken from the deletion thing. Oh, and have you read War and peace? I have, good book, I respect Tolstoy, but I pretty much hated it.WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *I think the Different Strokes book is up for deletion because the article doesn't establish its notability, and the awards listed are for the author, not the book. It's not because of the AIDS content. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly does make sense, the article doesn't make it clear what the book is about? Then I guess what I said was wrong. But maybe deletion is too harsh a measure, maybe making it more detailed and longer. Sorry about the implications I made before. I guess when you get the anonymity of the internet, everyone feels free to say what they think, and force what they think. I promise it won't happen again.WilliamMThompson (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel up for AFD 

message: ; April 2007
* Devta
; May 2007
* God's Companion
* Living Space
* The Mark of the Assassin
* Fusion Fire
* Nonovvio
* In the Ceiling the Stars Are Shining
* Hatching Magic
; June 2007
* The Guardian Cycle
* Missing Links (novel)
* Labyrinth of Struggle
* The Carmella Trilogy
* The Parachute (novel)
* Journey into Legend
* Doubting Thomas (novel)
* The Coffin Quilt
* The Magic Elevator
; July 2007
* Invasion (Russian Novel)
* Fighters of Danveyt
* Dark Skies (Russian Novel)
* The Seven Sleepers (series)
* The Last Empress (novel)
* COUP!
* Scream Play
* Void Moon
; August 2007
* Modoc (novel)
* Miriam bat Mordecai
* Jurassic Adventures: Survivor
* Jurassic Park Adventures: Prey
* Jurassic Park Adventures: Flyers
* Wild Animus
* Off the Map (collection)
* My Holocaust
* Trevayne
* A Midsummer's Nightmare (novel)
* Whispering to Witches
; September 2007
* Tales of Adam
* The Rise of the Black Wolf
* The Killing Hour
; October 2007
* The Six Bullerby Children
* Shayol Ghul
* Warcraft: Lord of the Clans
* Warcraft: Day of the Dragon
* Warcraft: Of Blood and Honor
* Warcraft: The Last Guardian
* Warcraft: War of the Ancients Trilogy
* Dragon Tamers
* World of Warcraft: Cycle of Hatred
* The Blue Bedroom and Other Stories
* Marvelous Bob
* World of Warcraft: Rise of the Horde
* Chosen of the Gods
* The Glory Field
* Memorias De Idhun: La Resistencia
* Voyage on the Great Titanic
* The Use of Force
* Warcraft: Night of the Dragon
* Noman (Noble Warriors Trilogy)
* Evil in the Land Without
; November 2007
* Cameron "Buck" Williams
* Tribulation Force (group)
* The Art of the Matter
* The Universal Baseball Association, Inc., J. Henry Waugh, Prop.
* The Game of Sunken Places
* Cara Walker
* Lila Fowler
* Elizabeth Wakefield
* Steven Wakefield
* Jessica Wakefield
* Lois Waller
* Enid Rollins
* Amy Sutton
* Roger Barrett Patman
* Suzanne Devlin
* Todd Wilkins
* Olivia Davidson
* Nicholas Morrow
* Regina Morrow
* Winston Egbert
* Penny Ayala
* Annie Whitman
* Jeffrey French
* Tom McKay
* Ken Matthews
* Abbie Richardson
* Jeannie West
* Sandra Bacon
* The Voyage of QV66
* World of Warcraft: Tides of Darkness
* Just Kidding
* The McAtrix Derided
* The Aldonn Chronicles
* Eternity in Death
* The Growing Stone
* Die with me
* Bangkok Blondes
; December 2007
* Archangel (Shinn novel)
* Drenai
* Obadiah Hakeswill
* Heart of Gold (novel)
* The Alleluia Files
* Angel-Seeker
* The Night of Kadar
* Faldor's farm
* The Obscene Bird of Night
* Grand Manila
* Tiger (novel)
* Thubway Tham's Thanksgiving Dinner
* Thubway Tham and Elevated Elmer
* Thubway Tham's Baggage Check
* Thubway Tham's Chrithtmath
* Twisted and Other Tales
* Little Brother (short story)
* Sword Quest
; January 2008
* Legacy of the Drow
* The Elminster Series
* The Avatar Series
* Spine of the World
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 1: The Capture
* War of the Spider Queen
* Maztica Trilogy
* Wizard's Fire
* Cock and Bull
* The Hunter's Blades Trilogy
* Paths of Darkness
* Vulcan!
* The Cleric Quintet
* Rainbow Boys
* Rainbow High
* Rainbow Road (novel)
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 12: The Golden Tree
* Egyptology: Search for the Tomb of Osiris
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 9: The First Collier
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 2: The Journey
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 3: The Rescue
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 4: The Siege
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 5: The Shattering
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 6: The Burning
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 7: The Hatchling
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 8: The Outcast
* The Parched Sea
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 10: The Coming of Hoole
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 11: To Be a King
* The Island (1984 novel)
* Getting It (novel)
* So Hard to Say
* Moonwind
* The City of Ravens
* The Wyvern's Spur
* The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy
* Guardians of Ga'Hoole: A Guide Book to the Great Tree
* Sorority Sisters (novel series)
* Characters in World War Z
* The Sellswords
* The God Box
* Against All Odds (Hardy Boys novel)
* The Piratica Series
* Deep Fire Rising
* Kowloon Tong (novel)
* The Gates of Sleep
; February 2008
* Jason Bourne (character)
* Coldheart Canyon
* Draghkar
* Kendermore
* Brekke (Dragonriders of Pern)
* Tsion Ben-Judah
* Dragonlance: The New Adventures
* The Legend of Huma
* Amber and Iron
* Amber and Ashes
* Dragons of Spring Dawning
* Conundrum (novel)
* The Lioness (novel)
* Dark Thane
* Blades of the Tiger
* Trail of the Black Wyrm
* Prisoner of Haven
* The Inheritance (Dragonlance novels)
* Divine Hammer
* Darkness and Light
* Brothers Majere
* Riverwind the Plainsman
* How to Be Popular (novel)
* Time of the Twins
* Draconian Measures
* Sinner (novel)
* The Soulforge
* Dragons of the Dwarven Depths
* War of the Twins
* Orphan of Creation
* The Threat from the Sea
* The Alien Sea
* Tommo & Hawk
* The Second Generation
* The Nanotech War
* The Doom Brigade
* Edward Cullen (Twilight)
* Homecoming (Star Trek)
* Pearl in the Mist
* Flint the King
* Tanis, the Shadow Years
* The Magic of Krynn
* Kender, Gully Dwarves, and Gnomes
* Love and War (Dragonlance)
* Kindred Spirits (novel)
* Dragons of the Highlord Skies
* Wanderlust (1991 novel)
* The Good Master
* Life as we knew it
* Notes from a Minor Key
* The Griffin and Sabine Trilogy
* The Worst Witch Strikes Again
; March 2008
* Nevsky Prospekt (story)
* The Portrait (short story)
* St. John's Eve (short story)
* A Terrible Vengeance
* The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich
* The Carriage
* Teen Idol (novel)
* Something Upstairs
* Gob's Grief
This is too frustrating for me to deal with.  Some of these are works of Nikolai Gogol, including the story that inspired Night on Bald Mountain.  Good god non-notable? --JayHenry (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the notability tag...and hope for the best. At least will know which got deleted and can Deletion Review them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *I thought that was strange to; surely the Gogol stories would be automatically notable just because of their author. What's the general practice on this? Notably by association/authorship? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is still just a proposed guideline. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *I found the talkpage of the guy who tagged the Gogol articles. Here's his explanation: I did add that notability tag. For someone who is unfamiliar with Gogol's works the article does nothing to introduce them to the subject. As per the guidelines for fiction, an article should include assertions of notability, complete with references and secondary sources. A plot summary should be part of the article, but it should not be the whole article. In your post to me you gave a perfect example of the type of information that should be in the article: You write that it "has been thoroughly commented [on] worldwide, and was a staple of French baccalauréat literature exams for several years." That is an assertion of notability that should be in the article. —BradV 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I don't have any Gogol scholarship lying around my house, and I worry if I remove the tag without sources I'd face reprimand.  I think it makes Wikipedia look extremely amateurish (or really just idiotic) to question whether the work of Gogol is "notable".  But unfortunately the editors who care about "notability" often don't know the difference between Pushkin and Pokemon so here we are. --JayHenry (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing tags! And deleting. I'm up to July 2007, and am leaving a trail of red links. Some of the stuff is blatant adverts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking at some of your speedy deletions, I think you are using them wrong. Please read the definition at WP:CSD. A dispute over notability is not an A3. An article about a character that is clearly going to be an unsupportable article is still not an A3. A3 is defined as "No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion."   I congratulate you for your initiative, but I strongly urge you to at least tag, not delete in a single step. I think I's support almost all of your deletions on the merits, but most of them should have been done by prod. It has nothing to do with being an inclusionist or not, it has to do with following the right procedure. Let's clean these up, but the 5 days wont matter. DGG (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given up trying to convince people that they're misusing things like the A3. The image-deletionists inspired me to stop contributing images to Wikipedia, and the fact a book pretty much needs to be War and Peace to be considered "notable" around here (by around here I mean Wikipedia as a whole, not the Novels Wikiproject) has made me decide I will no longer create new articles on books. Unless an article is outright bullshit and vandalism, no one should speedy delete anything based upon a published work. 23skidoo (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I understand that as your permission to revert you in those cases I think it appropriate after consideration, without your considering it wheel-warring,  and I will look at them gradually to that end. DGG (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I went through them as a first pass. If anyone disagrees, then change. Also, I will restore any red-links. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Jay, you probably should have mentioned that the poor Lewis scholar wasn't able to complete his stub because his bad user name got him blocked first, and that he has finally been unblocked and apologized to... (Thank goodness!) Aristophanes68 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh that's interesting.  I didn't realize that the user had been apologized to.  Last time I read the page that apology had not been posted.  My point though remains that a (arguably) bad user name is not a very good reason to speedily delete an article, and we have a culture that almost goes so far as to encourage ignorance in decision making.  This is an example where knowledge of Wikipedia policies, but ignorance of real world subject matter, led to a particular embarrassing chain of events.  Ultimately, Kevin is correct.  The best defense is always better sources. --JayHenry (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Novel articles tagged as non-notable 

message: I am a new user, I just wanted to wish you guys hello, and any assistance would be greatly appreciated, Thanks.WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user 

message: Hello,
there are currently more than 200 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. Based on a database snapshot of March 12, I have listed them here. 
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability. 
If you have further questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novels of unclear notability 

message: Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I'm glad to join your conmunity, 
and wish to assit as far as possible.
* Welcome aboard, but I strongly recommend that you register an account rather than editing as an anonymous IP. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, my name is Damion|Hi, my name is Damion|Hello, I'm Damion|Hi, I'm Damion 

message: === Wikipedia:WikiProject Shannara ===
 
The result was merge into WP:NOVELS (as a task force / work group.)  -- Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The result was merge into WP:NOVELS (as a task force / work group.)  -- Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Shannara 

message: The result was Wrong Destination. -- Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes 

message: Several related projects were inactive. I've been bold and made them task forces. Further clean up / maintenance is still needed but more or less the merge is complete. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New task forces 

message: Was bold and transformed the inactive project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemony Snicket task force 

message: Was bold and transformed the inactive project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronicles of Narnia task force