Talk:The Big Read

message: Am I really the *only* one to notice that this article is a complete fail?  The article itself claims that the contest ultimately ended up with a winnowing down to a top 21, yet we are left to buy a Ouija board to figure out which of the 200 won that competition; apparently that list is a top military secret or something.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.12.92 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the Obvious 

message: I don't know who did this, and I'm not going to put forth the effort to figure it out, but I removed from the end of the intro paragraph the following:
"Please just delete the parenthetical above if the Wikipedian mania for citations and objectivity is so all-consuming that statement of the obvious requires documentation. (That is not what scholarship is about.)"
I don't have an opinion on what "scholarship is about" in this context, but Wikipedia is definitely NOT about putting editorial comments in the article itself!
Felosele (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial comments in-text

message: I have wikilinked each entry on these lists to improve the look of the page - unfortunately this has created a lot of redlinks in the Hungarian section. If someone knows of a bot which will remove all links beyond the first please direct it at this page and see how it looks - personally I think for list like this each entry should be linked. QmunkE 12:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realise what the quotation marks were for until after I'd linked everything - thanks for changing them. QmunkE 18:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks 

message: A mess, links anywhere except the actual book. Skinnyweed 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're all done now. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in Results 

message: the bbc website says they recieved three quarters of a million votes, while the hungarian section of this article says that in britain there were only 140000 votes. where did the number 140000 come from?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.176.194 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 April 2006
The source is Index.hu, this article.
:Az interneten ugyan még április 22-én 14 óráig lehet szavazni, de a szavazólapok összesítése már megkezdődött, az már biztos, hogy A Nagy Könyv kezdeményezés legalábbis a leadott szavazatok számát tekintve megelőzte az anyaműsort, az angol BBC-n futó "The Big Read"-et. Az április 19-i adatok alapján a szavazatok száma megközelíti a 200 ezret, ami minden várakozást felülmúl, a "The Big Read" program első fordulójában összesen 140 ezer szavazat érkezett, pedig Anglia 60 millió lakosával és az MTV-nél jobb közönségarányt elérő közszolgálati csatornájával jelentős előnyben volt.
Translation:
:Although it is possible to vote on the Internet until 2 pm, April 22, summing up of the voting sheets has begun. It is already certain that, at least in terms of the votes given, "A Nagy Könyv" [The Big Book] initiative has overtaken the mother-programme, "The Big Read", running on the British BBC. According to the April 19 data, the total of the votes approaches 200 thousand, surpassing all expectations: in the first turn of "The Big Read" there were altogether 140 thousand votes arriving, although the UK with its 60 million inhabitants and its public service channel reaching a higher proportion of the public than MTV (Hungarian television) had a significant advantage.
Adam78 11:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Personally, I think the German and Hungarian versions of The Big Read should have their own articles, to keep the British article small and everything cleaned up and organised. The Australian version (My Favourite Book) has its own article -- why not them? -- azumanga 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Go for it. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also agree; it would be neater and more consistent. Robina Fox 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: agree! Erich 23:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Requested 

message: Does anybody think it would be worth the effort to add a category? It wouldn't be hard with AWB, but I think it would be slicker if we had the category "properly" sorted, e.g. The Lord of the Rings actually sorts to 001 - The Lord of the Rings. I can probably do it with AWB but not sure how people would feel about it. Please discuss. ;) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, no discussion. I just finished  (188 of 200 items, some were redlinks, etc) and am now starting . — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Less than 2 hours later, they're both up for CfD. :( — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as they said over there, the category was not a good idea. The list is better. Carcharoth 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Succession boxes for several entries on this list were added by Eldestone. I've invited Eldestone here to discuss this, as I disagree with the idea of having succession boxes for this sort of thing. Carcharoth 10:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I think that it's a great idea, which hardly is surprising. It would be easier to navigate among the books in the Big Read and the succession boxes with the Big Read would look nice integrated into the succession boxes that many of the articles already have. Eldestone 10:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, those are not successions. If you had Big Read polls in 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. Then possibly you could do this, but for the winner only. But you are reinventing the single 2003 list at Big Read as a series of succession boxes. There have not been later Big Read polls, as far as I know. It also gets silly when you get down to the later entries (eg. number 200) in the list, as seen at yout talk page User_talk:Eldestone. Sorry, but I still think this is a really bad idea. People reading the individual articles should click on Big Read to get to the list. People can use the list at Big Read to navigate around. Why are succession boxes easier to navigate than a list? Carcharoth 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I still think it would be nice. I guess it comes down to how noteworthy you consider the Big Read. Eldestone 10:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It does seem excessive. Before reading the article here, I never heard of it - it's not on the order of the example Pulitzer. What needs to be done (since the category was ditched) is a simple statement somewhere in the article that was ranked n out of 200 in The BBC's Big Read. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that it's a good idea. Eldestone 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes for "The Big Read" 

message: To Kill a Mockingbird:
 
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Eldestone 10:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem excessive. Before reading the article here, I never heard of it - it's not on the order of the example Pulitzer. What needs to be done (since the category was ditched) is a simple statement somewhere in the article that was ranked n out of 200 in The BBC's Big Read. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that it's a good idea. Eldestone 07:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: When this programme was on in 2003, celebrities plugged each of the top 21 books - for example, Ray Mears plugged "The Lord of the Rings", and Meera Syal plugged "Pride and Prejudice". Does any one think we need to have the celebrities who plugged the top books in the article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrities who plugged the top books