Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 13

Walter Brierley - also an author
Could someone please collect information on this author and create a page on him? He is mention in this week's TLS (issue 5505), page 3. Or is this WP only concerned with novels, not authors?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The latter: novels, not authors. The Biography WP should be able to help, perhaps. María ( habla  con migo ) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This project is mostly focused on Novels. You may want to cross post over at the Biography project as the folks there are usually pretty good about figuring out notability and creating bio stubs. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So I have. I'm rather busy atm so hopefully they'll be able to help.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Steppenwolf Picture
Contrary to your ("Kevinalewis" that is) comments I don't think that the bad picture with the ugly looking old book in it conveys it's literary importance, I don't think it does anything for it. And, I notice you skipped our discussion on it that was in the Talk Page. I think the other title page is far more powerful, and conveys more a sense of the book, it looks better, and most importantly its a better image, I mean its been taken better. I find that aesthetics of an article are very important, and there's still actually nothing wrong with the other picture except that it comes from a later edition which is of no consequence. But, you'd rather stick with the old one for some unfathomable reason. Look, the only edit you've made in weeks was to cancel out what I did and that speaks loads. Still believe we should hold it to a vote. There's still no reason to go with a first edition just because its a first edition.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And you did the same to my other project, putting in a first edition cover simply because it was a first edition, despite the fact that my cover, (and I did search between numerous editions to find the one I wanted), more accurately displayed the feel and theme of the book while remaining an aesthetically attractive heading to an article. I think on Look Homeward, Angel, though, the other contributors will outvote you. I still say it is a stupid, pointless action.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a give away statement with your phrase here "my other project"! Nothing here belongs to anyone, this is a common arena. We need to get used to the co=operative nature of things and stick to established policies and guidelines. The matter of 1st edition covers has been there for at least three years and is recognised as the most significant reason to select one edition over another. Opinions about aesthetics would easily develop into editing wars with no good purpose. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  05:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rob, but Kevin is right... &mdash; the _ ed  17  &mdash; 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still going to agree to disagree, the edition of the book is a stupid criteria for heading up an article. I still think it would better to have a vote on each book among the editors of which picture was best. But that's fine, I simply won't bother to find any more pictures and upload them. It's the kind of thing that almost makes me mad enough to quit working on a project. And, user kevinalewis, I can use "My other Project", whenever I want to if its a project I've put hours of time and research into making close to 70 edits, working almost single handedly. In that case its not anybody else's project, it's mine, because there's nobody else working on it. I, in fact, have a list of projects I'm working on. I take offense to your comments.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't take offense - none is meant. However you will have problems if you are unable to take a few points of criticism. We all appreciate effort and contribution, and yes I can see your point that it is "somewhat" your project. But conversely at the end of the day once it is here none of this "belongs to us" that was really all I was saying. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  22:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm just a bit of a lone wolf sometimes, and get frustrated when people make changes that I feel don't add to the article quality, Hopefully we can get past this in working on Novel article. It really is the perfect article. I mean we should be able to get 200 edits in the month on it, easily. There's such a wide room for discussion that the problem will inevitably be keeping everybody and everything organized ando nto an outline, so I think the first order of business there should be to pool ideas on what to include and discuss under the modern novel section. Hopefully we can get the WikiProject Novel's 17 FA article.--Robert Waalk (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Novels Portal created
We now have our own portal which is located at Portal:Novels. Members can change the novels and quotes when they wish to make it differ for viewers. As only 1 article could be found as a DYK, thats all i could list. There is a problem with the novels covers, as i add some of them they are deleted for the ones under fair use, so cant fix that as that concerns the rules when they were placed on articles, so its potluck which end up remaining and which are removed. To add to articles use this template - Boylo (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very cool! The thing with portals is that, like userpages, non-free images are not allowed because the rationale does not cover Wikipedia space; fair use images are only to be used in articles.  This could make diversifying the portal's look pretty difficult, unfortunately. María ( habla  con migo ) 03:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay i wondered on that, and posted at media questions about it. If thats the case maybe best to not include any book covers on the portal. Boylo (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

New Collaboration of the Month
There is a new WikiProject Novels Collaboration of the month. Novel, which lead the pack with five votes. We'd like to make it a Featured Article, so we'd like to get as many people from the general community involved as possible. Its needs considerably more sources and information, and an entire section on the Twentieth Century developments of the novel and major examples, (see nomination text for more). Also, we've been a little short handed in regular editors, (just three at the moment I believe), so if you think you might be interested, take a look. Just thought I'd inform everybody.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm stuck inside of my drive to get the Alaska-class battlecruiser articles to Good Topic, but drop a note here or on my talk page and I'll c/e it to the best of my ability. :) Cheers! &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  22:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about starting work on a section on the development of the stream of conciousness narrative, discussing mainly Faulkner and Kerouac and their enormous impact on literature in America and around the world, (maybe not Kerouac so much).--Robert Waalk (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Let's keep specifics about article planning at the talk page, though, so things don't become fragmented. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 23:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to repost this, I just put it on your talk page, but I think I this stated my ideas best: I was thinking we could do a quick intro cover, then split it into several sub-sections on major developments in the novel. The ones currently on my mind were fantasy, stream of conciousness, minalamism, modernism, and post-modernism, as those were some of the major developments of the last century. Perhaps also discussion of crime noir, and the development of the murder mystery as a tenet of pulp and popular fiction. I even think we should have a section on Science fiction for the major figures and developments. That leaves us with a very wide, and broard encompassing project that I think could draw in a large number of people with different interests who would be apply themselves to this project, thus adding to the quality of the work that would get done. The 20th century section should be the longest section of the article, since more happened and changed in the 20th century than in all the previous four centuries, (going back to Don Quixote), combined.--Robert Waalk (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the article's talk page. Let's move the discussion there. María ( habla  con migo ) 23:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I was just trying to spark interest at the central hub, maybe get a few more people involved. I move all further planning to the article's talk page.--Robert Waalk (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the title of a short story?
Could somebody help me to figure out the title of an American short story? My memory is hazy, but it has some kind of mood found in William Faulkner's novels. It is a tragic story about a newly wedded couple of a southern region in a period before the Civil war occurred. A beautiful maiden married a young and wealthy landowner in her town. He inherited his family's property after his father died. He was raised by a nanny because his mother was dead when he was still very young. He had some cruelty inside, and treated his slaves harsh, but the couple fell in love. On the other hand, she was known to have adopted by a good couple who could not have their own child, and nobody knows about her biological parent. Anyway, the young couple was happy until she gave a birth. The baby's skin was not white and everybody talked about it. People assumed that the wife might have been a half black. At that time, people born between white landlords and black slaves became slaves. The baby was born weak, so dead soon. The husband drank a lot, verbally attacked her and was blatantly having an affair with his black-white mixed female slave. The wife was dead for some reason (I don't know it whether it was suicide or illness caused by the shock) After the funeral, the husband cleaned all of her belongings. He happened to find a hidden letter in a desk used by his father. The letter was sent by his mother to her husband and said gratitude for his sincere care and love. She especially thanked for him making a secret about her identity toward people as moved from their hometown. In turn, her mother was a half-black. That is the end of the story, and I want to know of the title. Thanks in advance. --Caspian blue 08:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OH MY GOSH I'VE READ THAT!!!! Hold on...I'm thinking of it...I'll get back to when I remember... &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  13:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * -.- I can't remember. Hunting through Faulkner's works, I'd guess "Jealousy"...but I don't even remember if it is Fualkner is the actual author....
 * Wasn't the husband from some rich French family or something? &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  13:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try Maria...if anyone, she'd probably know. Cheers, &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  15:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you. You also read it. It could be a notable novel. Yeah, the husband's family may be associated with French immigrants. "Jealousy" does not seem like the title. The story pretty much emphasizes "whiteness". How white and innocent the maiden was.. etc. His mistress/slave's name is Blanche. Thank you for the help. I will ask Maria per your suggestion. :) --Caspian blue 23:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Desiree's Baby by Kate Chopin, except in that story neither the wife nor the baby dies: the wife runs away with the baby and is never heard of again. Is this the story you're thinking of? – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!!! Oh, my memory.....obviously made the whole different story from the original. Besides, the story is in PD now, so I can read it "free" :)--Caspian blue 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it seems soooo clear and simple now..... :) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  01:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) Come to think of it, mother and baby may have both died together after disappearing among the reeds and willows on the banks of the bayou. I didn't pick up on the possibility when I first read it. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they did....wasn't there something about "they were never seen again"? Or am I going crazy? &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  06:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, she "did not come back again", after disappearing among the reeds of the bayou. Suggestive, but typically ambiguous. – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. I thought she died. Haven't this story be adopted to film or drama yet? I like the reverse turn.--Caspian blue 12:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter
I will be retiring from Wikipedia after the next newsletter is released. If anyone is interested in taking over as editor of the newsletter post here. Boylo (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationale behind List_of_longest_novels
I have to question this list' rationale. First, how is this not a complete exercise in WP:SYNTH? Is there source material for listing these books as being the "longest"? Second who determines if a book is a novel? This is currently causing problems with works such as "The Blah Story" (a self-published work consisting of the word "blah" repeated over and over for 17,000+ pages). Are self-published works to be included? This causes both the above (The Blah Story) problem and also calls the veracity of the entire list into question since there is no way to verify a work I may claim to have published. Also it opens this list up to stupid stunts like me creating a web page and simply copy/pasting any given word repeatedly until it was more than 500,000 words (the rather arbitrary, self-imposed lower limit on the article) then I get to put my "story" in the List. Copy the page, do a find/replace and I get another story in the List. Do this until someone gets pissed an blocks me, but the fact remains that the list is borderline synthesis (or, at least, forces the reader down the synthesis road). Then you've got entries like "Walls of Phantoms" with the entry "...is the third longest single volume novel ever written. It's also perhaps the longest by an African-American." Total OR. Or the entry for books like "Marienbad My Love" with claims like "...Marketed as the world's longest published novel in English, it contains 17 million words. The author also claims "Marienbad My Love" (which is the condensed title) contains the world's longest word, 4.4 million letters; sentence, 3 million words; and book title, 6,700 words." This list really should be deleted. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. Unless sources can actually be found providing a list of longest novels, the list is total WP:OR and should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the characterizing of such a list as WP:OR/SYNTH. OR is new information which cannot necessarily be verified because it has just been created. Reporting the number of pages or words is not OR in any way, nor is it SYNTH, because it is verifiable. Such counts should only, of course, involve first editions since later editions may have more or less pages or even more or fewer words if later edits occur. As for what should be included, well novellas by their definition will not qualify. Nor would non-fiction works like dictionaries because they are not novels. Novels are "dramatic" works that can either be fictional in nature or based on fact. As they are "dramatic" - told in story format - that disqualifies non-fiction works such as autobiographies and biographies because they are not novels. If there are statements that are not supported such as the Walls of Phantoms comment, then remove it and leave the basic fact of its lengh behind (assuming one doesn't first check to confirm that there isn't actually a source supporting it). I do think the list should be pared down to include the more extreme examples. It really isn't that unusual for novels to exceed 1,000 pages, so we should be restricting this to novels that are much longer in scope. As for the question of multiple volumes, that pretty much answers itself; if the work is intended to be a single whole, but for practical reasons was published in multiple volumes, then it's a single novel. If it's a series, then each book is judged separately. If the articles on the individual books have been written propertly, such information -- along with a source -- should be readily available for confirmation. 23skidoo (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The non notable novels have been removed. Although notability may be demonstrated by the reception based on length, this should be demonstrated not just inserted. For a list such as this research is needed but lengths on most of these remaining novels should be easily found. The list is of value but should be subject to all of the normal checks that any wikipedia article is. I would go with 23skidoo on the ability of editors to find the information required. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * @23skidoo - There's OR in the very title: "List of longest novels". How was this designation derived? From some editor here deciding that books that met certain criteria (determined by editors here, not industry metrics) were qualified to be designated as such. Neither the qualification criteria nor which works qualify are represented by any industry metric. It's the existence of the list itself that is the "new" information that was created. AND you argue that no "new" information is being created and then go on to describe to me the "new" criteria created by the article editors to identify which books are included in the list. How's that for OR, editors deciding what constitutes a "novel". As for WP:SYNTH, that has nothing to do with verifying information but using two pieces of information to "make" a third. For example: using the word count of a book to derive justification for inclusion in this list. As Collectonian said above, if some industry expert made the list and the list was covered in several newspapers (see AFI lists) then we've got a starting point. If it's a list we editors came up with, that's OR/SYNTH.
 * @Kevinalewis - It's not about the books being notable. If the books are notable they should have articles and you are more than welcome to mention the page count or word count in the books article. In order for this article to stay the article itself would need to be notable. Much like the AFI lists, those are third-party lists that are mentioned in several trade and national news outlets. The list itself is notable. This list was (as best as I can discover) created by WP editors and as such is not, in and of itself, notable. Padillah (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole of wikipedia is about items, subjects etc that are notable. Check it out. If the novels are notable of course they should have articles. If they do not then create them. This article does not need to be notable but the novels and their length do. This length does not need to be notable or verifiable but the "subject" matter of the article does. "Longest" as measure of novel is of enough note to be an article what actually appears here should then be based on source which indicate length. However non-notable novels that have just done "silly" things to get length should general be avoided, unless notability has been achieved and can be demonstrated. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * since when is the length determined by page count? It can be given, for whatever interest it may have, but would need to always be specified as being to a particular edition. vols. are even worse-- Pride and Prejudice, a medium length novel correctly not included here, was published in 3 vols. to meet the expectations of the publishing trade at the time.  You need to convert everything to number of words. And, if possible to have a source for that. I suspect if you look you will find that such information has in fact been published. Furthermore, there is no distinction in the list between a novel and a series. A Dance to the Music of Time, (& a few of the others here)  was published as a series--unlike, say, Clarissa.  I also have some problems with Musil, since the last vol was never finished & never published by the author, how can it be included in the count? DGG (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite agree this must be about verifiable word counts. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree too, since as I pointed out myself, different editions can be of different page counts but still have the same number of words. I've seen 300-page editions of the Holy Bible, for example (granted you need a magnifying glass to see the text), and I've seen books published in 100-page editions stretched out to 150 pages by fancy formatting. In response to Padillah, I'm sorry I just do not agree with your definition of OR. OR is information no one else has ever had or new information. If I invent something and post the plans in WP, then that's OR. If I make a qualifiable assertion regarding a book - "Joe Blow's SF novel "The Book" proves that Joe Blow was a Communist", let's say - and my only source for this information is myself, then that's OR. Counting words or page numbers is not OR, and the nature of Wikipedia allows for correction, so therefore if a book of applicable length is not listed, then WP:BOLD allows someone to insert this. The list title says nothing about "Complete list". 23skidoo (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your definition of OR is spot on. And the fact that you are the only one determining that these books are the "Longest Novels" is OR twice. Once in that they are the "Longest" and Twice that they are "Novels". If this were a "List of Books Over 500,000 Words" then you'd have something. That is a purely objective measure and needs no interpretation to establish. "Longest Novels" isn't. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Break
I'm still brought back to why is this list notable? Even if we stick to word count, who decides what the word count is? does your word count use 5 or 7 letters per word? How can we establish that the various books are classified as novels? If we take the OR out of the title then we loose any rationale for this list. Padillah (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a definition of "Novel" that can be applied; certainly "The Blah story" doesn't meet it. Also the issue of notability does not apply to the list as such but to the Novels themselves and to their length. "War and Peace" for instance is clearly a novel, clearly notable and clearly notable for length. A aatural candidate for inclusion. Then the list spins out of t he fact that a number of novels have gained notablilty for being "long". However that should not create carte blanche for all long items using words to be included here. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A recent discussion still can't quite get support for the "Lists don't need notability" argument. But it's close. I would still have to argue for a rename, to be more objective. Simply having over 500,000 words doesn't mean it's the longest. And I stand by the assertion that this list just begs people to make the OR decision of which book is longest. Would an RfC be appropriate (to get more than us two talking)? I'd hate to start an RfA just to drum up discussion, that's not the right way to go. If I do an RfC I'd use the Lists' talk page, not here. Padillah (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to your post above the edit break, how about this for a possible solution: it seems to me the main issue here is the article title and the critieria for inclusion. Why not, therefore, simply split this up into separate lists: List of novels between 500,000 and 1 million words and List of novels of more than 1 million words? Therefore no OR implied by the title, just straight fact. 23skidoo (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, That would eliminate the OR inherent in the title. It then becomes a question of "needing the list" (which seems to be covered by it's acceptance in the WikiProject), and "keeping the list clean" (which can really only be accomplished by constant maintenance). Padillah (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first concern as you say is covered by the Wikiproject and I would contend the second is probably as well, as I'm sure there are folks who would be willing to Watchlist them and if new entries are added, generally a quick check of Amazon or more than likely the book's article would be enough to handle maintenance. In the case of redlink additions, any title of this length that's added as a redlink would be worthy of attention to make sure there hasn't been an omission in terms of a missing article, or perhaps it might lead to the creation of a redirect to an alternate title. As with most well-patrolled lists the addition of nonsense, vanity press or other undesirable material would be dealt with in due course. 23skidoo (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Gadsby
I am seeking input from WikiProject members regarding the article Gadsby (book). I think this is the right place to start looking for additional eyes: the article used to be at Gadsby (novel) until 18 August, and its talk page rightly says that the article falls "within the scope of WikiProject Novels". The novel Gadsby is notable because it is a lipogram&mdash;in particular, the book does not use the letter e. There has been discussion over the years about writing the article in a lipogrammatic form&mdash;that is, without the letter e. The article is currently in lipogrammatic form, including the article title, citations, infobox, and even author's name (which is fully Ernest Vincent Wright). All paragraphs in the article are devoid of the letter e.

As impressive and "cool" as this achievement is, however, there is disagreement on the talk page about how appropriate a lipogrammatical article is for a serious encyclopedia (certainly the lipogram would fit at Uncyclopedia). There has been ongoing discussion at Talk:Gadsby (book) for several months that has not proved fruitful, in part because the two main editors discussing, JJB and I, hold dissimilar views. He believes the article should be fully lipogrammatical (apparently even to the extent of hiding the "edit section" buttons, table of contents, and categories), while I think the lipogram is patently absurd for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, JJB insists on writing all his talk page comments in lipograms even after being asked repeatedly to stop; as you might expect, the consequent roundabout phrasing makes for challenging reading.

I am not looking for project members to point fingers. What I am hoping is that members of WikiProject Novels will join in the discussion about the novel Gadsby and how to improve it, especially with reference to the issue of a lipogrammatical article. Please let me know if I can clarify anything, either here or on Gadsby's talk page. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally think a "project" to make any article mirror the style in which a novel itself is written to be completely inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not fanfiction.net.  I suggest moving the article back to Gadsby (novel) where it belongs, unhiding categories, adding correct inline citation formatting, and of course using the letter "e".  The prose is sloppy and the article unprofessional, so I'm sure the intended effect is not the outcome.  I don't even know where to start other than saying "fix it!"  Perhaps a mediation is in order if one particular editor is insisting on this endeavor.  María ( habla  con migo ) 13:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded; I would have said the same thing had I not been at breakfast. :) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  <sub style="color:#2F4F4F;">Vote for Ed  15:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Listed at WP:Requested moves. &mdash; Ed 17   for President  <sub style="color:#2F4F4F;">Vote for Ed  15:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done "some" work on standardising the article. It could arguably be titled as the article lead. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  10:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I quite like the notion of writing a lipogrammatic article about a lipogrammatic novel. I think I recall, for instance, that there were reviews of Gilbert Adair's translation of Perec's A Void that likewise eschewed the letter "e." I don't think that such reviews made their publishers a laughing stock. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A book review is quite different than an encyclopedic article, I should think. While the idea is amusing, there is also the issue of the prose being circular and confusing.  How does one attain "engaging, even brilliant" prose "of a professional standard" in this way?  Perhaps if the article could keep to a professional standard while not using the letter "e", I would agree that a lipogramattic style could be appropriate.  This article, however, seems to be a failed experiment. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, seconded for the same reason as above. How do you get to these before me? Argh! :) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  <sub style="color:#2F4F4F;">Vote for Ed  13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like discussion has mostly moved to talk:Gadsby (book). For what it's worth, I think we've lost sight of the ball if we never try creative approaches (which isn't to say we should try them anywhere and everywhere, but I do think we really ought to be much much more creative than we are).  When I first read this article I got several paragraphs into it before I realized it was itself a lipogram.  I disagree with the notion that we can't have prose that works on two levels--being an adequate standard, and being lipogrammatic.  It's not as huge a stretch as its opponents suggest.  The actions, characters and plot of the novel are all lipogrammatic persons, places and things, and it's relatively easy to preserve the style in these sections.  The only real debate is whether it's absolutely necessary to include a very small number of words/phrases like "letter e", "past tense", and a few others.  This lipogram does not prevent grammatical sentences (unlike the book that omits verbs, which does).  So the question becomes whether or not illustrating the lipogram is of more benefit than saying "letter 'e'".  I don't think it's unencyclopedic to suggest that what's imparted by using the lipogram is potentially of more (even much more) value to readers, than saying "letter 'e'" instead of e|most common glyph. --JayHenry (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Latino/Chicano Literature Project
North of the Rio Grande is an ongoing school project dedicated to improving select articles on Latino and Chicano literature. Among the articles we're working on are How the García Girls Lost Their Accents and Who Would Have Thought It?. We'd welcome any advice or help that members of WikiProject Novels may be able to offer. Please come drop a note on our talk page. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh&mdash;I've already been helping a bit at Who Would Have Thought It. :) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  <sub style="color:#2F4F4F;">Vote for Ed 
 * Indeed, and many thanks for that! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On the We novel, We (novel)
There was a person who made an edit to the page. His other edit was to Stellar classification which was removed as unwarranted. I never read the We novel, so I cannot verify if his change is correct. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's his change.


 * Checking the quoted source quickly reveals not only that the change was wrong, but also that this was a misquotation in the first place. I've fixed this.  (Though the system of referencing in general is off in that article, and it seems as though there's an attempt to cite two versions of the same article simultaneously.  Oh well.)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What a character
Looking at this, I wondered if a list of characters was in order. I've got my copy of the Warbook (& I'm starting a major add to the WatM shortly), which ends with AZ Ambush. Comment? TREKphiler <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  04:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD questioning whether reviews are viable sources for WIkipedia
Here's an interesting one. A person has nominated a book (a children's picture book, not a novel) for AFD, apparently on the grounds that he or she doesn't feel reviews should constiute "non-trivial third party coverage". There's no danger of the article being deleted as a snowball keep is underway, and the nominator is getting some substantial criticism for applying personal POV to Wikipedia policy. But I thought I would call the discussion to your attention because this isn't the first time where an attempt has been made to disqualify what one could call "non-academic" sources. There are some editors -- I've encountered them -- who feel the only sources that should be allowed for Wikipedia are scholarly journals and other encyclopedias -- basically sources that are themselves peer reviewed. While that's great if you're doing an article on Charles Dickens, it's not so easy if you're doing an article on Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Often reviews are the only sources available. I could see the nom's arguments being aimed at articles on full novels. The AFD in question is HERE. 23skidoo (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this stupidity never stop. I suppose again it is the nature of the beast. Those who don't get what wikipeodia is (or can be) who see it in terms of past examples of encylopedias or even in terms of current technology, "blogs", personal websites, fansites etc. Oh well! :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  12:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I keep saying that Wikipedia's Net bias is one of it's weaknesses -- particularly the fact that blogs are still not accepted as sources as much as they should, even though a growing number of researchers are treating blogs as sources of record. Ditto fan sites. The fact is especially these days you're more likely to find a fan website being the only source of information about some works, and in some cases reviews might be the only serious discussion minor works may get ... but that makes them no less worthy of Wikipedia articles. What annoys me about AFD is too often it becomes a discussion about what certain factions want excluded then actually discussing whether an article is a viable topic or is not a hoax. 23skidoo (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Debut novels
FYI. Postdlf (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarrasine by Balzac
This needs editing badly.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

World War Z
I'm thinking of nominating this for a GA class but would like an opinion if there is still work to be done? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Expand the lead a bit per WP:LEAD...I'll try to add more comments later, but I have to go to class! — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Scenes of Clerical Life
A peer review is open for this article. Please stop by and leave any comments or suggestions; I'd like to get it as good as possible. Thank you! El Staplador (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORTing foreign titles ?
I am happy adding with removing "The" or "A" in the defaultsort; but what about the foreign equivalents, for example Category:French novels has quite a few titles under "L" which begin Le, La or Les, should they remain under "L" or be moved; I moved a few but then wasn't so sure; hence this question...GrahamHardy (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting one! Did you mean "aiding" by the way? Ok, I would just comment that generally if the title has been translated into English the article should normally have the English title. However the most notable title is generally used so that nice simple rule is open to all kinds of exceptions. Having said that and to answer the question as posed, I would think that the convention of the particular language would be the one to use, not just a carry over from what we would do in English. I think the French tend to do much the same as then English speakers but I might be mistaken. By removing I hope you mean move them to the back of the title (e.g. "The Game" becomes "Game, The" etc.) as this makes a difference particularly with shorter titles. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say yes, the "le/la/les/un/une/des" should be moved to the end. It is a standard practice in French, just as it is in English (see fr:Catégorie:Roman de langue française). I am perhaps a bit biased because I (sort of) speak French, though—it may be confusing for a non-French speaker who doesn't realize that le/la/etc. are articles. (Of course, this should also apply to other languages that follow the same practice, as long as it's relatively clear). Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Books, Works Categories
I notice that for Helen Garner there is the category Works by Helen Garner and then subcategories Books by Helen Garner and Novels by Helen Garner. Is this the way authors' works are generally categorised? (And is this where I should be discussing this issue?) It seems to me that Novels are Books ie they are not mutually exclusive things. If we want to separate out Novels from other works I feel we should find another heading for those other works. Taking Garner as an example, she has written novels, short stories, essays, memoirs and social history (for want of a better word for the two books currently listed under Books). How is it suggested that we categorise these various types as articles are written for them?Sterry2607 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, normally this way. Not mutually exclusive but they talk about different things. Novels are a type of writting, Boks are a method of text etc delivery. The usual form but in this electronic age and with serialised novel, short stories etc in papers not the only one etc. We have examples of "Essays by author", we could start other categories and whilst "Books by author" is generally used for std "Non-fiction" it is agreed a slight misnomer. Perhaps "Non-fiction by author" might be better in that is also doesn't indicate format for delivery. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ( edit conflict but I didn't change my reply ) Without taking a look at them (it's 5:10 am and I want to go to bed now =]), I'd venture a guess that the "Works" is the overall category. The "Books" subcat will cover the non-fiction stuff, and the "Novels" subcat will cover all of her fictional works. I don't know much on category policy...offhand, I'd venture out and say that a rename of the subcats to "Non-fictional works by Helen Garner" and "Fictional works by Helen Garner" is in order...hm. Try looking at WP:CATEGORY? (maybe, very doubtfully WP:NAMING?) Cheers, — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  10:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would still go for "Novels by ..." and "Non-fiction by ..." myself the "works" elements seems a little redundant in context and the "Fictional works by ..." suggesting becoming yet another parent category to house 'novels', 'short stories' etc. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this depends on context. If an author doesn't have a large number of works, say fewer than 10 or 15, I would argue that just one category of Books by... or Works by... would be sufficient (though I'm not sure if there are specific guidelines otherwise; correct me if I'm wrong). Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Works by ..." would be the more inclusive and accurate title in these circumstances. However if "All" those 10 to 15 were of one type then the type of literature ONLY should be used. i.e. If they were all non-fiction "Books by ..." or is all short stories, "Short stories by ..." etc. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  07:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point; this is important to remember. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that I'd go by context. Works should be used as an overall category when the author produces a variety of works. The question is, when would it be sensible to have subcategories?  In Garner's case, she has written a wide range of works but so far we are not talking hundreds. My preference would be to have one category Works OR use that category and then two subcategories: Fiction or Fictional works (to cover novels, novellas and short stories - and screenplays??) and Non-fiction or Non-fictional works (to cover the social history/issue books, memoirs, essays). What say you all? (I really think Novels for fiction and Books for other works is totally non-intuitive.)Sterry2607 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree about the books one however Novels is NOT for fiction it is for novels. As soon as we start with overall headings for fiction that is just adding more layers of complexity that may or may not apply for some authors. bear in mind we already have, novels, short stories, short story collections, poetry, essays, essay collections, plays, screenplays and some others I think but can't remember. Have a look at the top level category . ::  Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK - though it seems to me this ends up with a lot of minimally populated subcategories for some authors where they have written a few novels, a few short stories etc. However, this is not my main concern. I'm happy to use Novels, Short stories etc as appropriate for Helen Garner (or anyone else). What I am not really comfortable with is the idea of Books as one subcategory somehow implying (completely non-intuitively to me) non-fiction. I really would prefer to use something more specific such as Non-fiction. How should I proceed with this suggestion?Sterry2607 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with most of this. The change to "Books by ..." to "Non-fiction by ..." would probably need to be discussed at the categorisation wikiproject. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  11:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okey doke, will do. Thanks. Sterry2607 (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous new articles
Hi, I wanted to draw your attention to Talk:The_Hardy_Boys. Thanks, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Percy Jackson & the Olympians
I was just wondering if we should have a task force for Percy Jackson & The Olympians. It is disorganized and needs a lot of help. Queenqpawn (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see it needs work - however I'm not sure this is a series that would garner enough support for an on going task force. :: Kevinalewis  : <sup style="color:#C90">(Talk Page) /<sub style="color:#C90">(Desk)  09:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move of Barry Lyndon article
A user has moved the article from Barry Lyndon to Barry Lyndon (film), and now the former page is a disambig page. A discussion has been started on the article's talk page to request it be moved back to how it was. Your thoughts would be welcomed. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List of horror novels
Is there a List of horror novels article somewhere out there? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)