Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 6

RFC on the allowance of cover images per NFC
I've opened an RFC to determine what the current consensus is on the use of non-free cover images on articles of copyrighted works per current treated of the non-free content criteria policy. The RFC can be found at WT:NFC. --M ASEM (t) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of The Clean Tech Revolution
Hi all ,

I've reassessed The Clean Tech Revolution, an article which comes under this wikiproject, against the GA Criteria. Editors might be interested in my review, Talk:The Clean Tech Revolution/GA1, which will be left open for a few days to allow other editors a chance to comment. The article fails to understand the proper form for an article on non-fiction books and could do with some expert attention in that regard. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Saving Max
Greetings. I am of course mildly familiar with WP:NBOOK, but I haven't written any book articles before. Do folks think that User:Pdcook/Saving Max meets WP:NBOOK? Thanks, P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 19:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Other refernces include:
 * A Parent's Worst Nightmare. by Cogdill, Oline H. Publishers Weekly 8/2/2010, Vol. 257 Issue 30, p29
 * Saving Max. Publishers Weekly 7/12/2010, Vol. 257 Issue 27, p24 --maclean (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I'll move it into the article space. Thanks! P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New article: Beyond the First Amendment
New article, created, at Beyond the First Amendment. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Everlost (novel) and Everwild
Can you please review and rate these articles? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

New article: Freedom of Expression(R)
New article, created, at Freedom of Expression(R). Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

New article: Net.wars
New article, created, at Net.wars. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New article: The Best American Magazine Writing 2007
New article, created, at The Best American Magazine Writing 2007. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New article: The Mystery of a Hansom Cab
New article, created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist request
The Man Who Would Be Queen‎, a controversial book about femininity in males, would benefit from some extra eyes to watch for vandalism and POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Restored Name King James Version


The article Restored Name King James Version has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A self-published, apparently anonymous online version of the Bible. No indication of meeting the notability guideline at WP:WEB.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pais (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

FA review of The Autobiography of Malcolm X
The Autobiography of Malcolm X has been nominated as a Featured Article candidate. The editors who have nominated it would appreciate it if editors would volunteer to review it.

If you're interested, please see the second blue box ("Supporting and opposing") at the top of WP:FAC and the review FAQ for additional information. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Should "Category:Novels by X" be a subcat of "Category:Books by X"?
I was puzzled to find that Category:Books by H. G. Wells only had 13 entries, then noticed that it has a note saying "for non-fiction works by the author". There is a separate Category:Novels by H. G. Wells, and both are children of Category:Works by H. G. Wells. This seems odd - I would place novels as a subcat of books. I see that Category:Works by Jean-Paul Sartre has the same subcats. Is this standard? Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will ask the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels but suggest that discussion takes place here. PamD (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I've run across the books v. novels distinction as well, but hadn't seen "books" specified as referring only to non-fiction. Is that a guideline for the "books" cat in general or just for Wells? I personally have been placing "works by X" in the "books by author" category fairly often, e.g. Category:Works by Bharati Mukherjee, which includes her non-fiction as well as her two story collections and a separate category for her novels. I notice the Category:American books by author page does not specify any distinction between fiction/non-fiction. If non-fiction-only is the standard, that she posted on all the "books by author" cat pages. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Me again. I'd like to propose that the "books by..." category include both fiction and non-fiction, and that non-fiction books be categorized under "non-fiction books by...". Having been sorting Category:Books by author, it looks to me like trying to remove all the fiction titles from "books by..." will be a losing task, and it will be easier to make "books by..." a subcat of "works by" that includes all published books, regardless of genre, but not individual essays, poems, short stories, etc. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you propose seems to be a reasonable, practical adjustment to the realities of categorizing. However, there is no one categorization scheme that will work best on all authors. This proposal seems to work for the case of Category:Works by H. G. Wells & Jean-Paul Sartre. The distinction between Books & Novels is odd, as I had thought all novels were books. I am in favour, of course, of being adaptable as different cases arise. maclean (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the idea was that "books" would be reserved for non-fiction--several "books by...." pages have that disclaimer at the top of their page. But people don't always look at the cat page before adding articles and it's so counter-intuitive that most people would probably never assume it on their own. Notice how the Category:Books by Ernest Hemingway page has the disclaimer, but still has novels included in the list as well as in the "novels by...." category. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises is up for deletion
I have nominated WikiProject Media franchises for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here for any concerns. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk)  19:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD Notice: List of books about bacon
The article List of books about bacon has been nominated for deletion. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Oz books' FLRC
nominated List of Oz books for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Oz books' FLRC
nominated List of Oz books for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediterranean noir
The page Mediterranean noir, which describes a genre of fiction, seems to feature a surprising number of links to one publisher (Europa Editions) for such a short stub. There may be spam or POV concerns, but I am really not expert enough to tell. Would anyone here care to take a look? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist
New article, of interest to project members. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist

Recently expanded article
Skipping Towards Gomorrah - I recently expanded this article. Check it out, if you are interested. Feel free to suggest additional secondary sources, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors with Applications to Transistor Electronics
Hello. I'm hoping someone might be interested in having a look at/developing the article Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors with Applications to Transistor Electronics. I have had it on my watchlist for a while now but am at a bit of a loss (it unfortunately isn't a personal area of interest). I previously prodded it but have changed my mind as I do believe it is a significant title. However, it currently contains no references and essentially no content. If someone else could have a look it would be much appreciated. France3470 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage
New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant

New article - Book about same-sex marriage by Dan Savage
New article - Book about adoption by Dan Savage. Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family

Input sought
I've made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) pertaining to notability criteria for writers. I think members of this project could bring valuable perspectives to the discussion. Cynwolfe (talk)

New article - book - It Gets Better by Dan Savage
Created, new article. :) Feedback, and suggestions for additional research and more secondary sources - would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living

New page - created - Dan Savage bibliography
Newly created page, Dan Savage bibliography. Feedback and ideas for additional information and secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dan Savage bibliography


 * Having just noticed this, I have made some comments and done some editing -- I consider this an entirely unnecessary fork, and even if an appropriate fork, half of it is just duplicative of the main article.   DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

List Peer Review - Dan Savage bibliography
This page is undergoing a List Peer Review, feel free to provide feedback, at Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dan Savage bibliography

Featured Article nomination - Everything Tastes Better with Bacon
Hey all. I've nominated Everything Tastes Better with Bacon for consideration as a candidate to Featured Article quality status. If you don't mind taking a look, comments would be welcome! Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

merge discussion
The following merge discussion about what to do with the Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series may be of interest to those in this Wikiproject:. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Book cover fair-use rationale?
Album cover fur is brilliant, thorough, and super easy. What would it take to create one for book covers (nearly every FUR I see is filled out with the least amount of effort, my uploads included, because FURs are so darned annoying)? Has anyone created one or thought to create one yet? It would make the upload of book covers much easier and less time-consuming. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 22:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * book cover fur is similar. maclean (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, bingo. So simple. I didn't even search for it because I thought it'd be a part of the upload process (much like album covers fur is. This is great, thanks so much! – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - copyediting help
Hey all - this article is currently at FAC, where it's been suggested to get some additional copyediting help to improve prose. I'd really appreciate any assistance, if anyone's willing to pitch in a bit. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

Notability of specialized books
Discussion on the notability guidelines for specialized books, such as programming or math is going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Some editors maintain that book that have not been covered in-depth in venues for a general audience, such as the New York Times, should be deleted from Wikipedia. However, recent AfD discussion on math and programming books ended up with such books being kept if they pass the less restrictive WP:GNG, for example Learning Perl or Perl Cookbook. Please voice your opinion in that guideline discussion. There is a balancing concern that probably most books by O'Reilly Media for instance would qualify under GNG, making Wikipedia catalog of such books. However, closing administrators in those discussions chose to ignore WP:NOTCATALOG or the NBOOK requirement for a review in venue addressed to a general audience. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Best American ?
Is The Best American Poetry anything to do with The Best American Series or are they unrelated...? GrahamHardy (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And a Similiar question for The Best American Magazine Writing 2007... GrahamHardy (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging
For those who may be interested, a user is rapidly tagging all "invalid Fair Use rationale" images, including many covered by this project. If you'd like to rescue pictures for books/novels, take a look at The ongoing tagging, there are multiple album and song articles on there; I'm trying to catch as many as I can, but extra sets of eyes & fixers would be appreciated! Skier Dude ( talk ) 00:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Years in fiction missing a few genres
I just discovered that the "years in fiction" categories have been including novels but not short stories, story collections or plays. I've manually added those categories from 2000-2011, but is there a bot that can add all the previous years as well? (The same problem holds true for the decade categories.) Help!!! Aristophanes 68  (talk)  01:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation for light novels
An issue over disambiguation of light novels has came up at Talk:R-15 (light novels) after the article moved from R-15 (light novel) to R-15 (light novels). Looking into the matter, I could find not set standard. Of the 9 articles that use the light novel disambiguation, 4 use (light novel) while the remainder use (light novels). Of the latter group 3, including R-15, originally started out with the (light novel) disambiguation, 1 had the (novel) disambiguation, and the last had "Series" as part of its title. Generally, I see article disambiguation in singular form in keeping with WP:SINGULAR, comics being one of the rare exceptions. I was wondering if that should be followed here or should a different method of disambiguation be followed? —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My general argument for this is that if you use (light novel), then that implies there is a single novel, but (light novels) shows that it is in fact a series of novels from volume 1 to volume x.--  十  八  20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "light novels" would be the correct term to use for series with more than one light novel. I think that a group of light novels in a series would be a "class of objects" in terms of WP:SINGULAR, and thus that policy would call for the name to use the plural.  While WP:SINGULAR isn't really clear on what is a class, I think the meaning of that is that the sigular should be used when the article is discussing a type of thing or is providing information that would be applicable to a typical instance of that sort of thing, but that an article on a specific group of things being discussed only as a group is a class and should use the plural.  For an article on a series of light novels, the article isn't presenting information about a typical light novel in that series, but on the series taken as a whole, so it is a class and the plural is the correct term in this case.  As for "light novels" vs. "series", it seems to me that "series" is usually used when diambiguating between a franchise and a individual work or character in that franchise.  I think "light novels" should be used over "series" unless there is a separate article on an individual work in that series.  So for example, to disambiguate between the R-15 light novels and the R-15 missile, I think R-15 (light novels) should be used.  However, if there was an article on an individual light novel named "R-15", then that article would be titled "R-15 (light novel)" and it then might be best to title the article on the series as "R-15 (series)" since "R-15 (light novels)" would be so close to "R-15 (light novel)" that the two might get confused easily (though I would still say "R-15 (light novels)" wouldn't be wrong in that case, just possibly confusing). Calathan (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing to consider is if the Wikipedia should make a distinction between novels and light novels were article disambiguation is concerned. After all light novels are a type of novel. The only thing that really separates them from other novels is that light novels are often serialized in literary or manga magazines and are generally aimed at teens. So is there really a reason we should use (light novel(s)) for disambiguation over (novel) or even (novel series)? Using (novel series) would be in keeping with WP:SINGULAR because "series" can be either singular or plural. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Precision and disambiguation go hand in hand as a policy. "Light novels" as a disambiguator is a precise description. Although light novels are a type of novels, calling them simply novels would be misleading. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 17:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That whole section says the exact opposite of what you stated. It actually warns against over-precision of article titles and disambiguations. And how would disambiguating a light novel as just novel be misleading? —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I'm sure you're aware that a light novel, while a novel, is stylistically different. From my experience, prose in light novels is much simpler than in literary novels, among other things. For example, one should not be led to believe that Shangri-La (novel) and R-15 {light novels) are similar in style. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 22:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The prose of a light novel is "simpler" because it is aimed at a younger audience. Light novel is just the Japanese term for Young-adult novel. But (young-adult novel) isn't used for disambiguation. And the only two times (children's novel) is used for disambiguation is when there is already an article with (novel) (The Navigator (novel)/The Navigator (children's novel), Run for Your Life (novel)/Run for Your Life (children's novel)). So Japanese light novels shouldn't be give a special disambiguation naming scheme just because they are from Japan. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Light novels", as a classifier, implies that there are multiple series or at least multiple stand-alone novels. Notice how there is a TV anime but that is not in the classifier because it is completely derivative. I believe sequel novels should be the same, and the plural form should be where there are multiple equal-importance novels. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Publishers cited by Wikipedia

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Seems to be a consensus for creating this page, assuming Headbomb is still willing to do so. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

At WP:JOURNALS, we have this nifty compilation of all the journal found in the citation templates on Wikipedia (see WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia, shortcut WP:JCW, take a few minutes to browse it if you aren't familar with it). It's a really awesome thing, since it lets us know what articles / redirect are missing and how "in demand" they are, and lets us cleanup some common typos and bad template usage.

I've talked to the bot coder, and he says it shouldn't be too hard to adapt the code to build a similar compilation using the publisher in the citation templates. We could host it at WikiProject Academic Journals/Publishers cited by Wikipedia, but since the vast majority of publishers deal in book, I was thinking it made more sense to host it at WikiProject Books/Publishers cited by Wikipedia. Ideally there would be a WikiProject Publishers, and I suppose it could be created, but currently there is none.

What's the general feeling on this? Useful? Useless? Should be hosted here, at the journals project, or elsewhere? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess my question is, what are some ways this list could be used? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for everyone, but for WP:JOURNALS, what it does is let us know what articles are missing, so we can focus article creation efforts (and redirect creation effort) where they are most wanted/needed. For example, in the first of these compilation Genome Res. was used about 10,000 times, but there was no redirect from Genome Res. to Genome Research. Journals such as Myconet or Gene, each cited several thousand times on Wikipedia, lacked articles entirely. We also compile subsets of these missing journals for WikiProjects so they know what's missing in their field, and where they should focus their efforts. In about two years, we've pretty much covered everything cited at least 80 times (the new dump was compiled recently, so now it seems we've got about 15 journals cited more than 80 times). And then there's the typo and spelling variants cleanup.


 * So with publishers, I suppose there would be the same kind of things happening. Except with publishers rather than journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, part of the rationale is that if Wikipedia editors are citing a journal (or publisher) then it would be worthwhile checking if the journal/publisher is notable and if so creating a new article. And the other part is, identifying those journals/publishers which are most cited, and checking that our articles on them are accurate and up to date. Seems a useful list. Is there a way that WikiProjects could have subject specific lists? And/or the journals/publishers be grouped by topic areas? The subject areas could be found from the categories and the relevant WikiProjects from the WikiProject templates on the talkpages.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WikiProject-specific lists could be made in theory. However in practice, those lists are much easier to build with journals, since they are often (see most of the time) very specialized (Archives of Disease in Childhood) and their scope is usually obvious from the journal's title. It's kinda the opposite with publishers, since they are often (see most of the time) rather generalized. Elsevier deals with "science in general", while Random House is pretty much "books in general" and Penguin Books is "paperbacks". But there should be a small subset that would be specialized enough for WikiProject lists (for example Cell Press deals with biology while IOP Publishing deals with physics).


 * I don't think anyone will object to such as list being created (after all, it can always be ignored), I'm just wondering about where to put it. WikiProject Publishing / WikiProject Publishers would be ideal, but these don't exist (they could be created however). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support It's within the scope of the project. If it doesn't fit inside WikiProject Books' remit, just make a new project page or stick it on Meta. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. It would be nice to do it for work= and others.  Not sure it should be part of a wikiproject, but it doesn't really matter.  I'd keep it here and not on meta, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Great idea; aside from the uses outlined above, comprehensive datasets like this can have unpredictable beneficial applications in the future.  Skomorokh   19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support; could be useful in many different ways. For example: Recently I discovered that a publisher was basically publishing an entire range of books which mirrored wikipedia articles (and copyvio'd other books &c). it was quite a challenge to track down articles which cited this publisher's books (and were, therefore, potentially either circular or at least pointing to copyvio). A tool like this would have made life a little easier in that case... bobrayner (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question First of all, that is a good idea to identify publishers that don't have articles.  An issue that may or may not be related exists regarding newspapers that don't have articles (example, Ruston, LA: The Ruston Daily Leader).  Secondly, I have a question, we have articles with dead links, and the target URL may or may not be available in web.archive.org.  What is the possibility of every online reference in Wikipedia being duplicated in an archive?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Ks0stm/A Pristine Suicide
Just a note that I created a userspace draft over this book in the event it meets its expectations. In the community, the book is expected to garner much attention, both local and national. In the event that this happens to the point where the book becomes notable enough for an article I would much prefer someone else take it over, as I consider myself to have a conflict of interest due to knowing the author and his family (and thus having a bias both towards the book and towards the author's side of the conflict presented in the book) that would impair my ability to write a neutral article. I would be welcome to any suggestions and input that can be provided on how to work on the article in the meantime, seeing as book articles aren't something I normally spend much time editing. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replied here. I wrote:
 * Cunard (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of World Orders of Knighthood and Merit for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Orders of Knighthood and Merit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/World Orders of Knighthood and Merit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Decstop (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Should red links be removed from the templates of authors?
The discussing is going on at Wikipedia_talk:Red_link right now. It affects a large number of articles about books and authors. More input would be nice.  D r e a m Focus  13:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Strawpoll. How many want to make being on the bestseller's list proof of notability for a book?
Please come participate in the discussion and poll. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

FA review
nominated Encyclopædia Britannica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Snowman (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of deceased authors ...
I would like to add a picture to the article for Pat Frank, author of the Cold War classic  Alas, Babylon. However, I am not seeing on on Commons and I am not sure about the fair use aspects of using the picture of the author from other sources (e.g., newspapers, etc.). Any help someone could provide would be great. Thank you. :) -- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 17:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this. But looking at some of the WP:FAs, it looks like File:Olivia manning.jpg has a similar copyright tag as you are describing. maclean (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply and links.-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 16:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Over-tagging
My sense is that if an article is already (appropriately) tagged with (which despite its name also covers short stories), that  should not also be added to the article's talk page, since this would just be redundant clutter, and even confuse editors as to which project to go to about issue with the article in question. Barring any objections, I'll update the talk pages of both templates about this. Redundant over-tagging with both is very common. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have been tagging articles as either WPBooks or WPNovels but not both. The current scope of WPBooks includes novels, but because WPNovels is a much more active and successful wikiproject, I am in favour of re-moving novels and short story collections from WPBooks scope so those articles can be dealt with exclusively through WPNovels. maclean (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting Support for Draft WikiProject Bibliographies
Fellow Wikipedians, I have taken the initiative, in consultation with a few others, to draft a WikiProject for Bibliographies. I hope it will be of interest to members of this project. The genesis of this effort has been a recent spate of AfD nominations of lists of publications. For the most part, the articles were not deleted, but that doesn’t mean many of them didn’t need work. A WP article entitled List of subject publications or any list of works, is by any other name, a Bibliography. Bibliographies within WP are specifically identified as a form of List in WP:List, are subject to List notability guidelines and the List Manual of Style. Unfortunately, many of the existing Bibliographies (or lists of publications) are not up to these standards. And there’s a high probability that new lists of publications or new Bibliographies won’t completely meet these standards as well, unless we as a community bring greater visibility to this genre of lists.

So the explicit goals of this draft project are to establish project-level advice for creating good bibliographies, gradually bring the existing set of bibliographies (400+) up to standard and to encourage editors to create bibliographies on topics and authors where appropriate. The goal is not to create bibliographies of everything or on everything.

I think the draft Bibliography project is logically connected to this project and members here would have a lot to contribute. If you are interested in participating, please sign up on the draft project page. If we get sufficient interest, I will move the draft into the Wikipedia space and we can press on. Also, please don’t hesitate to make suggestions on the draft here. I am sure it can be improved, will need some work to comply with Project guidelines and that it will evolve as this thing gets going. Thanks in advance for your support.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Afd and WP:NBOOKS
There is currently an Afd Articles for deletion/English Electric Canberra (book) that features 2 book articles bizarrely put under the 1 Afd, which has added to confusion by at least one editor (an Admin). These are English Electric/BAC Lightning (book) and English Electric Canberra (book) The Afd was even put by an Admin, who it seems did not know about the notability for books. The reason I am drawing your attention to it is the fact that those that have put delete do not deal as such in the book articles, but are claiming that the WP:NBOOKS is wrong and I get the impression they feel it should even be ignored. What I immediately saw is that the Afd goes beyond these two books, which are well referenced and meet the WP:GNG, because if this is allowed to pass and at least one of the articles removed (an admin admits that the Lightning book article does pass), then this can have repercussions throughout hundreds of book articles and we can seriously find ourselves losing articles rather than gaining them. Some books have specialist followings (fantasy, birds whatever) and as such these editors will work on them set to the guidelines of the WP:NBOOKS. Not only that, editors need to know the guidelines and rules and if these are suddenly changed so that one minute they allow articles, then suddenly the next sees then null and void, it’s not going to encourage other editors to participate much in WikiProject Books. We also have quite a few book articles with no references, but it would seem even if they were found to boost the article, it could still be removed.

Thoughts please? --BSTemple (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Books v. "Special Editions" of magazine
Hello Book Project People, Can you answer a question for me? I am currently creating a whole bunch of stubs on National Lampoon publications mostly from the 1970s. Take a look at the NatLamp template here. Many of the "books" listed take the form of books, and some of them were indeed books in the narrow sense of the word, but it turns out that quite a number of them are actually "special editions" of the magazine, even though they look nothing like a magazine and were sold in addition to the regular monthly issue of the magazine. Some of them are hardbacks even. They were however sold on newsstands not in bookstores. Is it OK to refer to these as books and give them the Book Project tag? I am trying to explain in the intro that these were "special issues". If you are willing, please take a look at for example The National Lampoon Encyclopedia of Humor to see what I mean. Thanks! I value your opinion! Invertzoo (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do they have an ISBN? If not, the chances are they might still be classed as magazines? At least, that's my opinion. --BSTemple (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know very much about these, but I think they don't have ISBNs. Does that mean I can't really call them books? Does it also mean I should not put them into your project, even though physically they are books? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Books has a very broad scope which sounds like it would include these. We should review the scope in collaboration with other WikiProjects. maclean (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. For the time being I will continue to call these things books and place them in the book project. I am also still using the book infobox. Please let me know if you guys decide that any of these things is inappropriate. You can always drop a note on my talk page. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for help
Hello. I'd like to ask members of this project for help in redirecting an article. I'd like to move Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History to Life Against Death, which is currently a redirect (the reason for the move being that the subtitle is unnecessary and makes the article's title too long). Unfortunately, I can't do this through the normal move procedure, and while I could do it through cutting and pasting the text from one article to the other, I don't want to do that. I understand there is another procedure, but I'm not sure how to go about it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This requires an administrative action. From Requested moves you can use speedy deletion G6 to clear the way for the move. maclean (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC : Notability of foreign works
A proposal that : As this is the English Wikipedia, and the primary users of this wiki are English speakers

Works which are in a foreign language

must have one of
 * a) coverage in English language sources
 * b) bestseller or significant sales/readings/tours in markets which are primarily (or significantly) English speaking
 * c) a higher standard of notability in foreign language sources, indicating that the work is likely of lasting value and interest. (not just the flavor of the week)

(Basically, do we need an article on every Scandanavian/Korean/Indian/Japanese/Etc author and book? Those interested in that are likely to be using the applicable language wikipedia in any case. Works that would be of interest to those who are not using the applicable language wiki are covered by a-c

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose the English Wikipedia covers the world. It's the English Wikipedia only in the sense that the articles are written in English. (The same, is true of the other language encyclopedias -- though they may emphasise a little the topics of their language area, they cover the world also, including the Anglophone countries).  What we sometimes have is the difficulty in finding sources, because good sources for some countries are not readily available, but when we do have sources, and people who know enough to use them, they should be included on the same basis as those with English sources.  People reading this encyclopedia will, after all,  benefit from learning about things elsewhere.   DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, would only make American critics even more confused every time a non-American wins the Nobel prize. Smetanahue (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the additional criteria. I support the global coverage of having coverage of the foreign language books. I`m less thrilled with the author biographies. We need more people who speak foreign languages to get these written on their native wiki and then translate them here. Language translating is more becoming easier with such services as Google Translate. I have no problem with the stubs in the meantime. maclean (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as utter nonsense. Don't be such an elitist.   D r e a m Focus  08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for The Relapse
nominated The Relapse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a plot-writer!
Hi all. I've recently started creating articles for books and am having serious trouble writing up plot summaries. So far I've just been slapping a more plot tag in the Plot section and writing a bare-bones summary... I was wondering if there is anyone proficient in writing up these summaries that wouldn't mind fixing them up for me. Any takers? (A couple of examples: The Whale Road, The Accident Man, Ingenious Pain.) Thanks,  Nik the  stoned  17:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Errors list
Is it normal to spelling errors of a book in the wikiepdia article for it? For instance listing off one page xxx the this word or name is spelled wrong? Seems excessive to me, but I found it in an article. Does it matter if the book is a historical book and it's not consistant with actual history, like getting a name or a person or building? Can these things be listed, or should they be removed?Mathewignash (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article are you talking about? A general answer is, we are not writing book reviews. It would be OR for us to identify errors in a book. Published writings about the book should do that (e.g. reviews, and references/footnotes in other books on the same subject) and we can quote or summarise what these writings say. And rew D alby  09:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The errors would only be worth mentioning if a secondary source (like a published book review) made note. For example, you could say The review in x magazine noted spelling errors. maclean (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is Killing Lincoln, and I admit it's a historical book, so things can be wrong based on our knowledge of history, and there has been actual reported contraversary on the errors in the book, but there is an editor who seems intent on listing every single error as his original research. He not only lists the historical mistakes, but spelling errors. I did remove one entry he made that listed the feedback people on a blog as a source, but I have not touched the rest, waiting to hear an opinion. Many of his sources are "left wing" news web sites, whose status as reliable I'm not sure about. Whether it's reliable or not though, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for listing things like... on page 161 of a history book they spell a man's name "Clifford" instead of "Gifford" or on another pages the book states that the distance from a box to a chair is 9 feet, but was really 11 feet. Just because it's true doesn't mean it's relivant to the wikipedia article. I'm sure if some external web site, that is a reliable source, wants to list errors in a book we can have it as an external link, but should a detailed list be in the wikipedia article itself?Mathewignash (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Losing "Stub-hood"?
All -

How does an article loose it's stub rating?

Ref: *United States Submarine Operations in World War II

Thanks.JMOprof (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now the only problem I see is that the article doesn't follow any conventional structure. See if you can reorganise it so that there is one section about the inside of the book, titled "Synopsis" or similar, and then separate sections for the book's writing process, publication, reception and whatever else there might be a need for. Strictly content-wise I think there is enough for a start-class rating, though it's a bit difficult to judge with the current structure. (The guideline WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article is sadly very underdeveloped. Current FA or GA-Class Book articles could be worth a look, though some of them are old and not up to date with current criteria.) Smetanahue (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a work in progress.  JMOprof (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that article is also covered by the WikiProject Military history I listed it at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests maclean (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Continued attack on Killing Lincoln
Now there is a proposal by the same editor who kept adding error lists to Killing Lincoln to state that despite the errors the book has not been recalled. It's a deliberate attempt to slant the reporting on the article with negative language. It would be impossible for me to list the number of things with wikipedia articles that have not been recalled. Bringing it up is completely biased, unless there is some reason to mention it, like a reliably sourced call for recall, which there is not.Mathewignash (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented at Talk:Killing Lincoln maclean (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fulgur Limited
I've searched very hard for sources to support the notability of a publishing company Fulgur Limited, but coming up empty-handed, nominated it for deletion. However, concerns expressed at that deletion discussion make me wonder whether there is somewhere a separate set of criteria for notability of publishers? Certainly I wouldn't want the article deleted if the company is actually notable by the standards of this project. Even if there isn't a separate criteria, perhaps members of this project have access to trade publications not easily available on the web which would support notability? While I've failed to find sources I feel are anywhere near adequate, if sources do exist, please bring them forward to help save this article. Yworo (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not able to find any sources either. The most relevant notability guidelines would be Notability (organizations and companies). maclean (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you efforts. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Replaceability help
Anyone care to respond to the replaceablilty tag added to File:JackLondon ADaughterOfTheSnows.jpg Thanks ? GrahamHardy (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Federalist 10
nominated Federalist No. 10 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)