Talk:Lilith (novel)

message: I clarified the origins of Lilith; old version could have been misinterpreted as characterising Jewish religious texts as mythology, in contrast to the Bible. They're all mythology of course but should be treated equally. - Anon. User:195.92.67.69  15:49, 17 October 2004
:OK, so far, but unfortunately in your clarification you introduced the error of implying that Lilith is a character mentioned in the Bible, which she is not.  --Blainster 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Must this sentence be included:
"Its importance was recognized in its later revival in paperback by Ballantine Books as the fifth volume of the celebrated Ballantine Adult Fantasy series in September, 1969."
I have noticed that this same sentence is used in every article about a book in that series.  This simply cannot be true for all of them.  With the steadily incresing popularity of Chesterton, Lewis, and Tollkin, the importance of MacDonald's works have never been 'forgotten', which makes the inclusion of this sentence appear to be a mere advertisement.  I deleted it once, but it was replaced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.57.35 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of the sentence is that being published as part of the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series denotes importance.  It was essentially a series of classic fantasy reprints, and therefore the works selected by the editor for the series are classics.    This would hold true for all the works the editor selected.  Demonstrating Lilith's importance in this way doesn't suggest that MacDonald's works would have forgotten without the BAF reprint, it is merely another demonstration of that importance.  I'm also not sure that I would classify the sentence as an advertisement.  I'm not sure what the point would be of advertising a series which which was published over 30 years ago and is not currently in print.  I would support adding the sentence back, but I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to weigh in.--Rtrace (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who probably put in most of those notices, I naturally agree. I in fact used the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series article as a springboard for the creation of many of the articles on the works included in it. The BAFS was a landmark series in the publication of modern fantasy, and the inclusion of any work in it is noteworthy. Therefore, I have put the sentence back. BPK (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I just don't get the same implication from the phrase "Its importance was recognized in its later revival..." that you do.  I just don't think that mentioning one example of the novel's importance implies there were no other such examples.  Certainly, if there are other examples, they could (and should) be added to the article.  As to the other classic reprint series you mention, I would enjoy seeing links to series from the individual articles and in fact it has been done for a few of the volumes (e.g. Candide, Almagest, On Old Age and The Cenci).  The fact that no editor has chosen to back link for all the articles in the series you mention doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.  I had previously assumed that your use of the term "advertisement" was along the lines of types of articles mentioned in WP:ADS, which is clearly not what is being done here.  As far as promoting the BAF article by linking the individual volumes, I don't really see a problem with that.  It is not as if links to the BAF article are being placed in an article to which it has no relation.  Lastly, I'm not even certain that Lilith was in print when Ballantine reprinted it in 1969.  There was not a printing for 5 years before the BAF reprint.  The Donald H. Tuck Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy which covers through 1968 lists UK printings in 1895, 1896 and 1924.  There were US printings 1895, 1896 and 1925 as a standalone novel, and in 1954 and 1964 as part of an omnibus.  Worldcat appears to agree with Tuck.--Rtrace (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballantine Adult Fantasy 

message: :Image:LilithNovel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LilithNovel.jpg

message: The major revision of the plot summary which was instituted on May 17, 2006, the bulk of which remains to this day, was absolutely abysmal.  I just finished reading the book and the plot summary prior to that time was much better.  I would like to revert all edits back to that point but I have a feeling all the editors since that time would be incensed.Spiritquest (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has gotten steadily worse