Template talk:Dale Brown

Removing redlinks
Frankly, I disagree with that move. The books are clearly notable and ought to be created as articles or given links, the redlinks encourage such article creation. It not an inundation of links, but rather a honest proof of what we are missing on Wikipedia. It is deceptive to only display a template which has all blue links because it implies that his books are complete. In other topics, which don't have a finite number of articles that should be in it, it makes sense not to have redlinks, but here, all of them should be written, Sadads (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, you decided to enter discussion after two reverts! Frankly, I and WP:REDLINK disagree with you. You reasons are not good enough. If you wish call a third opinion. But do not revert again. Fleet Command (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I didn't mean to revert so quickly. But frankly, with novels, especially with high profile authors, you can expect the article to be written, and their is a definite limit to what can be linked on a navbox. Redlinks are beneficial because it shows the gaps in our coverage. I have seen many articles about novels written in this way, even if they are stubs. I will ask for another opinion, from User:Truthkeeper88. Any objections?Sadads (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Still, you made the third revert, which is unacceptable. Why don't you follow the chain of dispute resolution? Call in a third opinion. High profile author? Read Notability. Red links are beneficial, yes, but only in the articles. You love, Dale Brown? Understandable. But red links in Navboxes are not; burying the reader and deterring navigation is the result. That is not just what I say; that is what WP:REDLINK says. WP:REDLINK is a guideline and hence a codified consensus between a lot of Wikipedians.  You can call in a third opinion if you wish. Fleet Command (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the 3RR, I have never actually had to employ it over the past 3 years or so, and I was under the impression that it was 3 total reverts between the two editors, then the discussion had to start. Actually, I hate his books, I think they are horrible, but I also think that high profile authors, unless they are very undercovered in reviews, should have their articles created, and currently we have a dirth of individuals interested in WP:Novels. If you want proof of notability, there are certainly plenty of reviews talking about the repurcussions of many of his books, take Silver Tower for instance, Sadads (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested a Third opinion. It should come within the hour. And no, I do not want a proof of notability, especially not for Dale Brown. What I want is the proof of HUGE notability for the red-linked articles, so much so that warrants emergency article creation! Only in that case, I'd accept a violation of WP:REDLINK. Fleet Command (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As for 3RR, three reverts by a single editor is the limit. The fourth is one that bans him. (The technical term is "block" not "ban".) However, depending on the nature of edits, the block may be enforced after the very first edit too, or even edits that are not 24 hours apart. Fleet Command (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sadads asked for my opinion on this, so here goes: personally I'm not crazy about red links in templates, I like to see a nice tidy blue-linked template, but that said, the function of a template is to not to censor out material that doesn't have a page - hence the necessity for red-links. Some templates I'm personally familiar with that have red links are: Template:Hemingway, Template:William Blake. Will we write a page for every single Hemingway story? Dunno. Is every single Hemingway story notable? Dunno. But, someday, I suspect we will have pages for all his stories, just as someday we might have pages for all of Dale Brown's books. Also, FWIW, I've seen many templates in the visual arts pages that have red-links. Hope this is helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add to above: it doesn't really make sense not to red-link the 2003 novel if the 2002 and 2004 novels have pages. What makes them more notable? I think all the novels should be listed, red-linked or not, and if the red-links are objectionable, then create stubs to turn the red to blue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, asking from a friend to give third opinion is highly questionable (especially with a similar mindset) but I won't argue this time. However, to be neutral, next time request third opinion through WP:3O. Remember that if the third opinion is not acceptable to the party in question, he or she might opt to continue down the dispute resolution chain. Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, FWIW, Sadads and I disagree more than we agree. And, I'm about the only other person around who works on novels and lit articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only one who works on novels? Wow, man! You really should open your eyes and look around you. Fleet Command (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the other people do WP:Children's literature actually, we are the only ones who consistently do the reviews of Novels. We can ask at WP:Novels if you want more opinions (you won't get many), User:Maclean25, User:PrincessofLlyr and User:Derild4921 are the other ones that regularly participate in these discussion, Sadads (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify - active at WikiProject Novels. I'm also active with children's lit authors and illustrators, and modernists - oh, and I'm a woman, just so you know. I've never read Dale Brown and seriously doubt I ever will. However, I have seen a good number of templates around. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, administrator Chris Cunningham, who has voiced his opinion in Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 18, is not in favor of keeping the red links either. This means that Truthkeeper88's third opinion is now null, as it is now evident that this opinion is not a representative of a consensus amongst Wikipedians. Unless you can prove that there is established consensus to overlook WP:REDLINK (which is a guideline), then we stick to the guideline. Fleet Command (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The red links are fine. How can you list some of the books in a series, and not all of them?  That looks out of place, and is misleading to people who might think that was all the novels there were.   D r e a m Focus  10:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The redlinks seem appropriate when they are novels in a series of well known bestsellers (as some of these apparently were) or when the novels are by such a prominent author. Publishers Weekly, Booklist, LexisNexis and ProQuest are a good places to check for multiple reviews of the novels which are in question. Lists as well may have redlinks, for completeness, and from common sense, if the items are likely to have sources to support notability. Edison (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are not, in a template. The aim of a navbox is to aid in navigation, not to advertise article-creation possibilities. That is what WP:REDLINK says and a few votes does not change the guideline. You, Edison, must know that; all admins know the policies and guidelines. We even have a task force for removing red links from templates. (Though I have forgotten its name; but if you search you'll come across it.) Fleet Command (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish admins had a self-updating chip-implant with up-to-date knowledge of all policies and guidelines. This is the second time recently that you have asserted admins are perfectly informed. I hope that someday if you are an admin, you are able to live up to that lofty image. Policies and guideline get changed from time to time based on shifting consensus. Most of us tend to specialize in certain areas, and may be a bit fuzzy about areas rarely dealt with. There are also new guidelines popping up from time to time, and frequent changes in guidelines. If you point out where an admin's comment is inconsistent with some guideline, certainly the admin should read it. If a guideline says something inconsistent with actual consensus of the wider community, then the guideline might need a tweak. Edison (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that me reverting you one time wasn't edit warring. And so far, consensus is against what you are doing.  Don't make your changes against without forming a consensus on this talk page.   D r e a m Focus  02:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you are basically saying I was not edit warring because I was edit warring. WP:REDLINK is a guideline and represents the consensus between millions of Wikipedians. A few dozen of votes won't change it. Fleet Command (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Millions? No more than a dozen or so people ever contribute to the suggested guidelines.  And have you actually read what it says?  Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as Main or Further, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.  So it isn't a problem here.  Also, edit warring is reverting someone more than three times in a 24 hour period.  Me reverting you once, was not edit warring.  It makes no sense to list some of the books, and not others in that series, it just looking stupid.  And every single book there was a bestseller, so can be made into an article.   D r e a m Focus  02:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These links are not part of series. They are just written by the same author, that's all. But if you had said this before reverting me twice, it might have compelled me. And no, 3RR is only one of the many types of edit warring. Edit warring is the love of hitting the revert button, especially in absence of a wish to discuss. Fleet Command (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you not believe these links are part of a series? Its from that series of books!   D r e a m Focus  02:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is your interpretation of the word "series" then red links should be allowed in all navboxes because everything they list is part of a series of some sort. But no, they aren't. They are books by Dale Brown, that's all. Fleet Command (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/series defines series as "a : a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial or temporal succession  " and "succession of volumes or issues published with related subjects or authors, similar format and price, or continuous numbering". So a series of books in a series, is a series.   D r e a m Focus  03:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Stretching the definition of the "series" exception to try to claim that a group of related novels must all be included in a navigation template goes beyond the intent. The exception is to cover things like annual events where a hole is obvious because of numeric sequencing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since template articles have long included books in this manner, I believe the intent was to include that as well. I've asked on the relevant talk page for opinions on whether the guideline page should be altered to include the word "novels".  Wikipedia_talk:Red_link No sense continuing the discussion here until we clarify what that page means and what it should include.   D r e a m Focus  03:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
I just declined a full protection on this page, because I have faith that all of you are experienced enough to stop editing while there's a discussion going on. Open an RfC, or start a discussion on the guidelines' talk page, or whatever it takes to get a discussion going, but, in the meanwhile, stop editing the article. If y'all can't do that, I might protect the page, or I might block editors for editor warring--whichever seems more appropriate (no comments at the moment who would be most likely to be on the receiving end of such a block(s)). The current version of the article doesn't matter--what matters is that y'all get a consensus on what should happen. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you do acknowledge that there is an edit warring going on. Good. But I have waited too long, so long that Silence and Consensus have turned into "Silence but a Love for Revert Button". Therefore, I feel obliged to request you reconsider the protection. Fleet Command (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You do know that if I fully protect the page, I may well protect it at the pre-dispute version (the one with redlinks), right? Or I might arbitrarily pick whatever version it is in right now...or at the time it was last stable...or whatever. In other words, any protection I do won't actually get the version you want, just the wrong version that stops the edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you see the discussion above, those against removing the red links are Sadads, Truthkeeper88, Dream Focus, and Edison. The only person stating on this talk page they should be removed, is Fleet Commander.  Please lock the correct version as consensus is quite clear.   D r e a m Focus  03:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * However, only one of them is supported by a plain reading of the guidelines and by common practice as well. That tends to influence the divination of consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just checked in with Jayron, and xe protected while being unaware that I had decided that it was unnecessary due to reports at multiple noticeboards. Please note that when admins protect a page, they actually aren't supposed to try to determine the current consensus--they should either protect the current version, the current version minus one (to not reward the last actor, especially if they filed the request), or the version prior to edit warring.  Jaryon32 said that it's fine if I undo the protection.  The question is, if I do that, are you all going to start reverting each other again? I warn you, doing that will inevitably result in blocks for edit warring.  Maybe now that it's on, you can figure out whatever forum is best to answer the question, get it answered, and then report back here what consensus is. Let me know, I'm watching. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not care which version is locked; just let it remain locked. Let the sleeping devil sleep for one month. I have no objection to your locking of the other version except that it would be another revert and would fuel other reverts. Fleet Command (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel I am being mistreated here. I am granted inferior rights in comparison to other Wikipedians involved here and am receiving unjust treatments: I am receiving the same "warnings" that Sadads and Dream Focus are receiving. Previously, Sadads had tried to win the discussion by pulling a 3RR card instead of talking and later by requesting input from an involved party instead of WP:3O, although I complied with the outcome — at least for the time being. Later, when administrator Chris Cunningham countered Sadads's arguments on 23 August in in a TfD, Sadads did not reply. Again, when I posted my intention to remove the red links again on 31 August, he did not reply. However, when I eventually assumed Silence and Consensus and committed the change, Sadads hit the revert button, still not communicating. If it is not acting in bad faith, then what is bad faith?

As for Dream Focus, he did not show the slightest sign of attempting to discuss the matter at hand before I reported him to Administrator's Noticeboard. He twice hit revert button because (according to his edit summary) he did not agree with my definition of edit warring. Note that this is an extension of the pulling "3RR card scheme": Provoke me into reverting three more times and then report me! In the meantime, I did not revert his edits beyond the one time that is required of me.

So, why I am being constantly threatened with being blocked? Fleet Command (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And why do you ignore what people tell you, and what evidence is before you, and try to distort things? Check the time of my post on this talk page and of my reverts.  I discussed it previously on the talk page BEFORE hand, and then after both of my reverts.  I reverted you because I disagree with what you did, not because of your definition of edit warring.  You are distorting things constantly.


 * Talked about this previously in the discussion on this talk page. Someone else had reverted your removal of red links previously, with a total of four people being against it, and you the only one at that time posting you thought red links should be removed.

10:55, 4 September 2011 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,464 bytes) (Undid revision by FleetCommand Things other than blue links can be on a template. It looks rather incomplete otherwise, and some of those books are probably bestsellers as well and thus deserve an article)

02:00, 5 September 2011 FleetCommand (talk | contribs) (750 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Dream Focus (talk): You are edit-warring, Dream Focus. Either continue the discussion or I will report you.)
 * You revert me.

02:01, 5 September 2011 FleetCommand (talk | contribs) (Warning: Edit warring on Template:Dale Brown.)
 * You then go to my talk page, and post an edit warring warning, even though I had only reverted you only one time.

02:05, 5 September 2011 Dream Focus (talk | contribs) (1,464 bytes) (Undid revision 448501607 by FleetCommand (talk) I reverted you once, that not edit warring. Others have reverted you as well. YOU are now edit warring. Use talk page)
 * I reverted you a second time.

02:14, 5 September 2011
 * You requested page protection

02:54, 5 September 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎ (→User:Dream Focus reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: ): ~)
 * You report me for edit warring for my second revert.


 * That discussion could be read at:

You could've just kept discussing this on the talk page, but instead you dragged it all over the place.  D r e a m Focus  12:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, Dream Focus, it's because few people take warnings from you seriously. When I take your actions and warnings into account, I generally use them as an indicator of a problem you are causing, not fixing. This case certainly falls under that umbrella. You've added material to a template twice when you know that the addition is controversial, and you also know by now that both WP:BURDEN and WP:BOLD indicate that once the material is challenged and removed, it should not be readded until there is a consensus to do so. The guidelines do not say "Once it is the way Dream Focus likes it, it should stay there until there's a consensus to change."&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That said, Fleet Command, you are edit warring. You are in an unfortunate situation, but it happens. A small group of editors comes to believe their topic area deserves treatment that goes against guidelines, and refuses to edit in accordance with them. Another editor corrects the problem, and his correction is undone. If the group refuses to listen, constantly putting it back is generally not the right answer: an RFC, or discussion on the guideline talk page is.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, I gave no warnings. Also I didn't add in material, I reverted its removal, it having been there in the template for quite some time.  And I personally never take anything you say or do seriously Kww, since you are rude and seemed to have a personal grudge against various members of the ARS.   D r e a m Focus  23:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm never rude, DF. Blunt, certainly, but not rude.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have neither been rude nor blunt here, I give you that. Fleet Command (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you all get that off your chest's now? We get it--there's history between some of you.  Some of you don't like each other, or each other's editing philosophies, or whatever.  Luckily, I couldn't care less (this is me being blunt).  If I were mean, I'd drop the protection now, if only because I suspect that some of you would keep edit warring, which would mean I'd block you.  Luckily, I'm not, so I'm leaving the protection up for your own good.  I see that there is a discussion going on at WT:Red link, which is good, though I'm not entirely certain you're going to get an answer there that is sufficiently clear to apply here.  Nonetheless, discussion is good, edit warring is bad. Let's keep the discussion going. I believe that a key question from the other thread that is best answered here is whether or not the books in question are part of a series.  I've opened a new section below to discuss the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do excuse me Qwyrxian, but you are now an involved party yourself. You would like to block some of us because you don't like us? And you cannot block Kww, can you? (He's a sysop.) Fleet Command (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kww said: "That said, Fleet Command, you are edit warring." Am I now? (Well, if there is an edit war and it involves someone reverting one of my changes that is committed after gaining a consensus, then yes, I am surely a belligerent too.) But that does not mean I am doing anything wrong, for two reasons:

First, if I am doing something wrong, then what is the right course of action. I have asked many admins this question: What is the right course of action? They all started their answers with "Don't", which is a form of evading the question, and eventually didn't tell me what I should have done.

Second, if I am doing something wrong and am reprimanded for it, then why others do exactly the same and aren't wrong? I reverted Dream Focus once, so did you. Was I wrong? I reverted Sadads once too but I did explain how his edit was unjustifiable since he had failed to justify his own policy violation since 23 of August.

As for calling in RFC, we have already gone through that. Wrong section, yes (TfD instead of RFC) but who is to say its outcome is invalid?

Fleet Command (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you should do when there is an editing dispute is to follow dispute resolution, which has all sorts of options, including contacting noticeboards, RfCs, mediation, etc. Obviously, this issue isn't so crazy to require all of that, but look at what's happened below: now that people have (been forced to) stop edit warring, I can see a consensus forming about a functional, useful solution.  Edit warring, by definition, can never accomplish that.  Were you edit warring? I don't know, I'm not going to count up everyone's various reverts and measure them per unit of time and try to come to some decision.  I'm only going to leave you with one "don't", and it's a hard one, even one that I myself fail to heed, but a good one: "Don't edit-war even when you are certain that you are right" (obviously, vandalism & BLP exceptions apply).  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent try, although I must mention that your don't is one helluva don't that might get you burnt in the stake (figuratively) but let's not argue it. As for you do however, I have a problem: The Silent Ones! TSO are people who do not communicate and do not heed RFC or MEDCAB results. They just hit the revert button. I call a MEDCAB, apparently, TSO raises no objection or counter-discussion in the MEDCAB, but then, after deciding that the MEDCAB is concluded and there is no consensus, TSO hits the revert button. What should I do after see him having reverted? Fleet Command (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like something completely unrelated to this template (since it's obviously never been to MEDCAB). As such, its best to take this conversation elsewhere; as long as you haven't already taken this issue to a number of noticeboards (I don't want you to be accused of forumshopping, please leave me some more information on my talk page.  Exactly what should happen in that situation depends quite a bit on the context.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not accusing me. I shall respond to this assumption of good faith in kind by not accusing you of intentionally overlooking critical parts of my previous statements and then replying with due ignorance to torture me. After all, it might just be as simple as a lapse of memory or merely having too much on mind. Let's not discuss at all, okay? Or, if you insist, try reading my two preceding posts. Fleet Command (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Issue resolved! The template is still complete, since it'd be stupid to have it otherwise, but no red links which some might object to.  Whenever someone takes his other bestselling novels and makes articles for them, a link to those can be added.   D r e a m Focus  17:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No way! This is like the hundredth of time that you have declared premature victory. One thing is clear though: You are gaming the system and are not acting in good faith. Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The best way out of this mess would be for Dream Focus to recognize that he made changes that went against the consensus of editors on this page, and self-revert. I don't understand exactly why he didn't get blocked for edit-warring when he made it, but that threat hangs over any editor that reverts him.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No threat for me reverting. Dream Focus, your edit is not what the consensus was below. As far as I can tell, the consensus is to create a list article and then link all of the unlinked books to that. So, you know, stop edit warring, and all that. Didn't I say that before?  Next edit to the template to do anything other than that compromise solution will result in a block.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion mostly took place over at the red link talk page where I thought we had resolved this.   D r e a m Focus  15:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What the hell? Assume good faith!  As I explained at User_talk:Jayron32 I honestly thought the situation resolved.  The problem was with red links.  If there are no red links, then the thing certain people were complaining about, is solved.  Other articles simply have plain text instead of red links to make sure the list is complete.  No one mentioned they were against plain text listings at all, until AFTER I had changed it.   D r e a m Focus  15:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just red the discussion at WT:Red link, and I certainly don't see any consensus there for your position. I see you asserting that your position is acceptable, basically because no rule specifically disallows it. I see you (DF) saying it's "stupid" to list some books and not others.  What I don't see is anyone actually agreeing with you there.  Or here.  So I think that, first of all, the policy you need to be looking at is WP:CONSENSUS, because in the words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The you missed the part over at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates where editing in a way DF doesn't like is "destroying" articles? You chastised me earlier for "having a history", but that's the root of that history: time after time, the argument is made that because people disagree with him, they are destructive. I, in turn, argue that that very attitude is disruptive.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of context. I didn't say anything about destroying articles, just content, as in deleting parts of the templates they don't like.  And I was arguing a set rule for everyone to allow or not allow it, instead of arguing back and forth time and again everything this comes up.   D r e a m Focus  11:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If I knew people would complain about that, I wouldn't have done it. All arguments to that point in time were about the red links.  Many author templates list just plain text instead of red links, so I did that.  Assume good faith please.  Also please go to  and state your opinion on whether plain text should be allowed for author templates it is now commonly on, never allowed, or only allowed if it looks pretty because appearances are more important than anything else.   D r e a m Focus  11:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Are the books a "series"?
Evidence, either way? Numbered editions, sold as a complete set, described that way in reliable sources, etc.? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I already proved that. You just search for it through Google, and you'll find that Barnes and Nobles and every other major book seller, shows them by the series name, and numbers them.    D r e a m Focus  00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a good question, and being debated over at WT:Red link. Most of my objections would go away if it can reasonably be demonstrated that this is a numbered series. There are links to places like the Barnes and Noble page where B&N describes it as a set. Notice that the covers of the books themselves do not. Note that Amazon doesn't describe them that way, either, and the author-provided statement on the Amazon page does not. I do think Amazon counts as a "major book seller", by the way. Bookfinder does not. Goodreads.com does treat them as a series, and a quick look indicates that it assigns the same numbers as Barnes&Noble.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazon list the series name.  D r e a m Focus  00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So does Book finder. They even sell them together at times. "Title is Dale Brown 3 Book Set - Patrick McLanahan Series - Shadow Command, Shadows Of Steel, Sky Masters"   D r e a m Focus  00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bookfinder has the keyword in the search tree, but doesn't display it in the titles. Amazon is relatively consistent: only the Kindle edition uses "Patrick McLanahan" in the title, and it doesn't show a numbered position in a numbered series. All other formats do not include any indication of being part of a series.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any actual doubt those books are in a series? They have the same main character, and happen one after the other.  I notice the Amazon preview includes various reviews from reliable sources in the front part of the books.  So I suppose someone could take the time to make them all blue link articles based on that, and make this particular discussion irrelevant.  As I suggested over in the Red link page, if its a problem with just the link, then we just have the names without any link at all for those books without articles yet.  Thus it meets the requirement of a template, without violating any possible interpretation of red link.  Anyone object to just doing that?   D r e a m Focus  01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to individual entries in a "List of Dale Brown books"? No problem. The list should normally be created before independent articles, anyway.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is evidence, perhaps not, I will discuss that later. Does it means that we unconditionally need red links even if those red links? Let us see: First, look at Independent Series section. The name says it all: The WP:REDLINK exception does not apply to this section at all.  Second, look at the Act of War Series section: Both book entries do not have an article. The only blue entry is Act of War: Direct Action which is neither a book nor made by Dale Brown but most importantly, Act of War: Direct Action is not even related to Act of War books! There is no similarity whatsoever between AoW: DA and those books save for a few names (which are put on ENTIRELY different characters) and the concept of war robots. (Wow! War robots! I guess that makes Matrix part of the series too, since there was manned war robots in there!) AoW:DA can be put in "Related" section.  Third, look the so-called Patrick McLanahan Series. Dream Focus argues that booksellers are using his extended definition of "series" and are selling them as part of a series. Yes, they do so because doing so is a good advertisement. (I am sure that is the intention of Dale Brown too.) And that is exactly why we should not because Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for Dale Brown. We use the common definition of series revealed by this simple question: Will someone miss anything if he read Day of the Cheetah without reading Sky Masters? The answer is "No"! The stories are loosely related.  Don't you ever think that I'd make an exception for any favorite of mine. Mister Hercule Poirot is no exception. Fleet Command (talk) 06:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FleetCommand, rather than digging in to your position, what about the compromise position offered above? In that option, an article titled List of Dale Brown books will be created, and then the template will contain links to the entries on the list.  Does that seem like a good solution to you? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I expressed my acceptance of this compromise long time ago, long before you get involved in this. (And so, I assumed that the whole point of this edit warring getting ever started is the rejection of this course of action by all other involved belligerents.) Still, I haven't changed my mind. (If you see me explaining my position, it is because the topic is called: Are the books a "series"?) Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)