Talk:Lists of books

message: Well, the section heading says it all really.  It's unclear to the person (like me) who stumbles across this page what is being aimed at.  Surely not a list of every book ever published?  Not only is it difficult to see why that would be appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but it would be an impossible task (and the list is far shorter than a genuine attempt at universaility would indicate).  Yet it's not a listing of every book for which there's a Wikipedia article (because many of the books listed don't have articles), nor of every book referred to in a Wikipedia article (many are missing).  In fact, going through the list, there's no apparent criterion for inclusion; it could be a list of somebody's bookshelves.
So I'm genuinely puzzled.  What exactly is the point of this entry?  If there is one, could it be explained on the index page? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is the point of this entry? 

message: I hope extending the list so considerably will add to rather than detract from its usefulness. The main lists are still at the top. I don't see the advantage in having the list numbered, so I'm going to replace the numbers with bullets. Robina Fox 18:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of lists

message: What a great idea. Now I know this page is here, I will use it again. It's such a quick way to get an idea of whether something I'm looking for is likely to be around, and if so, where. I have a cheeky suggestion though. Lists are so useful, that having a list of lists can be even more useful. Here's the cheeky suggestion -- a list of all lists of lists. ;) Alastair Haines 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for it.  Here's the list of lists, and here's the list of all lists of lists.  (I gave the former its first major expansion under the title "Lists of articles by category", but the name has since changed.) GUllman 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I love this page!

message: At the risk of stating the obvious, the selective lists section is for lists which are not comprehensive, either because they are already set (e.g. the Big Read) or depend on a vague or POV selection criterion (e.g. "important" or "classic"). Robina Fox 13:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only lists that I notice have POV selection criterion are List of famous books and novels, List of important children's books, and List of children's classic books.  The others with a selection criterion are from calculated popularity or sales of books, or set by a well-known and authoritative person or organization.  Most of the lists (such as the main list of books) have no criteria except for having a Wikipedia article; these are valuable to Wikipedia's writers and users as an overview of which articles exist and are needed. GUllman 23:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective lists

message: Take a look at List of newspapers--222.67.204.235 (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a list of templates - I can't see how it would work with this list. Robina Fox (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The format of the list.... 

message: Would be nice to have that too. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Books on Wikipedia 

message: i changed the lede, and was accurately corrected, but would like to propose another difference: per Lists of films, "This is a summary list of articles containing lists of books". i prefer to remove references to WP directly in articles, including ledes.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur (per WP:SELF). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: This started with List of books about Oakland, California, with my question being: what is WP policy or consensus for lists, or bibliographies, that include many items not themselves shown to be notable, but which are, or can be, used as reference material for other articles, or for research in general. I see we have oodles of lists of books where each item is shown as notable, and a number of very impressive "Bibliography of XXX" articles which list lots of works that are themselves not notable. Are these two distinct types of lists? what are the inclusion criteria for works on a subject if we are not attempting to show their specific notability. I think my main concern is that for any subject, there is a huge number of books which mention the subject in passing at a minimum, and which have at best marginal notability within their field, let alone notability to justify a separate article here. I feel like allowing too many books of marginal or tangential content to fill up these lists waters them down and renders them useless. examples, both real and hypothetical: from the oakland list, it includes books NOT about the city of oakland. now that to me is just right out, as they say in the UK. other examples would be obscure pamphlets, vanity press works, or any works collected by simply using search strings at google or amazon and adding everything found. Oh, and if the "list of books about xxx" and "bibliography of xxx" are really the same thing, we should settle on a single form of name for them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists vs. bibliographies

message: I wonder In which list to put a novel which doesn't fall in historical, fantasy etc, just a plain novel. Schlafes Bruder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest in this case: 1992 in literature, List of fiction works made into feature films (0–9, A–C), and to add the author to List of German-language authors. --- Robina Fox (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing a List of novels 

message: I added a section for Publisher Lists as I'm working on two right now.--Jaldous1 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishers