Talk:Best Word Book Ever

message: You might be a bit more convincing if you actually bothered to CITE your articles, like everyone else does.  External links don't really count much.  Pharmboy (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed to a PROD, which means it won't be speedy deleted, but it will autodeleted in 5 days if the problem isn't fixed.  The main problem is that the article is a recreation of an article that was previously deleted.  Normally, that is a no-no.  I am trying to give some benefit of the doubt here, and give you a couple days to put inline citations in the article to back up the claims of notability.  Please leave the prod tags there until the problem is fixed, which gives you plenty of time to fix it.  If they are removed without fixing the problem, then I will go back to speedy or AFD for deletion.  If you have questions, just ask.  The problem is:  there are no citations inline, as in http://www.example.com types of links AFTER a particular fact, and no References section.  I will add the references section, but you need to add citations to 'prove' the facts in the article, just like other articles.  Yes, this is a particularly sore spot for me because the article was already legitimately deleted before and recreating it without reading up on citations first means I am spending time here, when you should have read up on how to properly cite an article before creating it.  So pardon me if I am a bit short (it is normal for me), my 'bothered' comment may be rude, but it is correct. I will try to help some on this.  Pharmboy (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising?

message: # Book infobox  Done Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some ISBNs and the equivalent, and another reference, plus several other changes.  I'll look at more of this later. Anybody else want to play? Wakedream (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: His books have sold 100 million copies and been translated into 30 languages--I added this and a source to the Richard Scarry article. Don't know the numbers for BWBE. Wakedream (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements requested 

message: Presumably the book ref should not be in links, but I didn't actually refer to it- Where should it go?
IceDragon64 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if it's used it would be most appropriate in the Richard Scarry article. As you said, it's not a link and isn't referenced here, so I regretfully removed it. If it is used in a way that would help this article, feel free to add it back in.Wakedream (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book ref? 

message: I read over IceDragon64's improvements to the article, especially the addition of sources, and added another source.  I also added more general info including bits about other editions, reworded sentences, redid the reference tags (they were fine, but the now current ones gives more detail), etc. Pharmboy specified the parameters under which 'e felt the delete tag could be removed.  I believe that, with the combined changes, the article meets the criteria.  If not, please forgive me.  I did add a few Fact/citation needed tags for elements I think should be sourced.  The article can still use some improvement, but I think it's a keeper. Wakedream (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed delete tag 

message: Are you guys sure about this?  This is the seminal work of one of the most successful children's picture book authors ever.  This is the work that provided the basis for all the rest of Richard Scarry's later work.  It has sold millions of copies and been translated and revised for decades.  This dismissive categorising makes me feel that we need more of the facts/stats that show just how major this book is.
IceDragon64 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still stand by this. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the ranking is based on not only the subject matter, but also the general state of the Wiki page. If you want to raise the importance - improve the page. So don't just complain - do something about it. Considering its also been rated as a stub, you have alot of work ahead of you. Ckruschke (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From where do you gain the idea that Importance is based on the state of the page? According to the Criteria of Importance, the state of the page has nothing to with it.
IceDragon64 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Importance? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Best Word Book Ever. 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/20080102022620/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rscarry.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rscarry.htm
*Added  tag to http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780873588737
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) 23:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified