User talk:GlenUG

Citation needed
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, and let me say that if you have that opinion, you must provide a reliable source for it, as your own opinion is not sufficient, see WP:V. I am removing your claim now without prejudice, if you can find a suitable source that states the book is indeed what you claim then you are free to add it back, but since it is disputed (one editor is enough) then a source is required. See WP:3RR in case you're wondering.

The history of this is that we have had trouble with the list - you will see it is very poorly cited - and all sorts of stuff has been added with little reason and no supplied evidence. That said, your claim is inherently problematic: if academics indeed put down all sorts of novels as travel lit, then the list will grow even more indiscriminately than it is already doing. We can set the criteria more sharply ("non-fictional travel literature"), but of course it may be hard to demonstrate that even "real" travels are entirely free of fiction. It seems a shame to delete the list altogether, but that is where your type of addition is leading. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Chiswick Chap, I thank you for your feedback on the citation problematic concerning my recent edit. Although I agree with you that the list may indeed grow indiscriminately, I personally think that the list - and by extent perhaps the entire page - is quite vague on the division of fictional and non-fictional travel literature. What I mean by this is that most of the periods (esp. from the 17th century) should be divided into two main categories, fictional and non-fictional travel lit (and that should be where the addition should stop here in order to avoid any further fruitless divisions into actual (non)-fictional literature). Seeing as I'm currently working on a thesis which concerns eighteenth century travel literature, I could be able to provide most of the page with sensible sources - because most of it is indeed poorly cited. I hope you consider my request, best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenUG (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's very good of you. I suggest that to do that you should do three things:


 * 1) Extend the lead (introductory) section of the list to explain the (strengthened) criteria
 * 2) Divide the periods as necessary (there are 2 options - have 2 lists each with C17th in them, or have fict/non-fict in each C. list, not sure which is better...)
 * 3) Add sources to each item (ok, and (4) delete unsourceable entries). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi GlenUG! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 10:08, Monday, March 28, 2016 (UTC)