Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

Welcome to our WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum.
Please sign and date your entries by
inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new discussion topic.

Our main WikiProject page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum/GeneralArchives

---

Documentation

Introduction to Discussion Forum

As some are getting a little confussed about where to go for General Project Wide discussions, and as other projects, (including the WikiProject style guide include a forum like this) I have established this for General discussion.

It should be used for anything project wide, and try to use the individual page talk pages for anything specific to that page. i.e. smaller issues.

Also announcements to the wider project user base perhaps should be made here. Not quite a one stop shop, but close.

Enjoy :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

Omnibus

How should omnibus books be handled? They are generally a bundling of multiple novels under one cover. I would think that each novel could receive it's own entry, and that a (book) entry would contain a summary and link to the (novel) entries. Any policies or existing ideas for how to handle these? For example, I have one entitled The Chronicles of Narnia, but each book is actually it's own novel. Thanks PeregrineV 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Again a personal view, however based on the practise observed here, Omnibus editions can be included in author bibliographies, they can be referenced in articles on the individual novels that make up the collection in the "release details" section. If the series that make up the collection has a justifiable article of it's own (ie. the Chronicles of Narnia) the omnibus edition can be referenced in the "release details" section of that article. Omnibus editions normally do not warrant their own article! There are always the potential of exceptions of course. Also worth noting that Omnibus collections are "not" the same thing as short story collections (which can have articles). The key being that Omnibus editions are not the prime or primary form of publication for these novels. Trust that helps! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of an exception. I created an article for the Saint omnibus Wanted for Murder because I discovered that for decades this was the only American publication of the novella collections Featuring the Saint and Alias the Saint which were originally published separately in the UK. Given that later American editions of these two books indicated that they were originally taken from Wanted for Murder, I decided it warranted a special case. Otherwise, I agree that omnibus books generally shouldn't have their own articles unless perhaps they contain unique or previously unpublished material (for example although one does not yet exist I would support an article on the William S. Burroughs compilation Word Virus because it contained some material that was never before published). 23skidoo 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one suggestion for another sort of exception—books out of print in the original format. e.g. Leo Frankowski wrote a series known as the Cross Time Engineer series (See Conrad Stargard instead) and has a habit of getting into tiffs with his publishing house. Subsequently, the option having expired or whatever, Frankowski went to Baen who was glad to pick up the popular series, and re-issued it (there are now two sequels not listed) as an Omnibus of the first three and last two shown, plus the sixth as well as three or four other HC books that I know of. Then he got into a tiff with the late Jim Baen, and... but I digress. My point is the omnibus title is still in print in HC and paperback, and the original books are not. Seems to me an short article on that title is in order, with apropo links (Main and sub-article or some such) in either direction. Such would share something in common with a series article, if there is no such. Cheers! // FrankB 04:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I would agree with the exceptional case cited by 23skidoo, this one I don't. Wiki is not a directory of in print publications. It is an encyclopedia, which in the context of literature and novels is to record notable novels as originally conceived by the author and as originally released. There is long president for this approach which even means that Dicken's novel and Conan-Doyles novels which were original published as series should be mentioned in that publication format first. The only reason that they are not covered issue by issue is that these are entirely incomplete narratives in that form and it would be impracical to treat them seperately. There is no problem with an article per individual publication, recording the original novel release and in the ==Release details== section itemising the fact that it is now available in an omnibus format. The omnibus edition is not (generally) a notable item, the original publication is! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cover or jacket blurbs

Was wondering on the appropriateness of including jacket or cover blurbs to the books, if possible. PeregrineV 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An even more personal view! Cover blurb in general frowned on here, But! What I would say is that if clearly indicated in the "full inline reference" that is encouraged for all quotations then it is permissable. But this should be to augment the article, not to be the only content as you often see in poor quality stub articles. As a rule I would tend not to use them, but if they are used that should be clearly marked and treated like a special type of quote. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, they're part of the copyrighted material, so use sparingly. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, informed legal opinion is they are outside the copyrighted work proper. See this where I'd asked by email and posted the answer of a lawyer/Admin many of us knew by a previous user name, and one who does a lot of work directly for Jimbo and the Foundation. By another token, use of same is fair use, and more importantly, the owner's (is it the publisher or the author or the author of the 'blurb' or 'splash'... gets murky!) going to laugh all the way to the bank, not complain and bitch. I generally agree it's a better idea to not use them, but there are occasions where those and other words in the author/editors own words are a much better presentation of the knowledge we're trying to deseminate at hand. I've block quoted forwards and prologs and afterwords extensively in the various The Grantville Gazettes articles because that was the fastest way to present material that was presentable. The whole collaborative authorship and web-synergized development of the series has been hard enough to get straight and present when and where needed. I cut the lead article down due to some complaints, and yesterday I noticed some complaints that now it's not complete enough. Sheesh! Eventually we'll go back through and get choosier about the excerpts when the material can be worked around, or looses it's immediate importance. In the meantime, the material says more about the book to our readers than I can find time to work around just now, as it does to someone browsing the shelves of the local Barnes and Nobles, or (in Baen's case) browsing the author's books on the publishers website. Issues such as this are one reason I figured Peg's idea to resurrect and resuccitate the WP:WikiProject Fictional series was a good idea. It's not like I lack wikiTasks—I spent most of a WikiYear without ever looking at a wikipedia article on a book, forsooth! <g> // FrankB 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

S. S. Van Dine's Philo Vance stories

I have been working on these novel articles to add infoboxes with various details and notice that most if not all make use of very POV text and are not very wiki in english style. If there is any one of us that is familiar with these novels or is otherwise in a position to help please have a look at a rework. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Creating Pages, or Not

Supposing one has a pet favourite author who was moderately successful in her day but has largely been forgotten (in my case, D. E. Stevenson) ... the page about her is currently entirely stubbish. I have recently been using Ebay to great purpose and acquiring stacks of her books. For the time being, I'm not going to write great screeds about any of them, just get things started - would I be best off, in people's opinion, writing the stuff as sections of her page, or creating actual stub pages for each book straight off? --JennyRad 19:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No hard and fast answer to this. Are you likely to get much written quickly, write one at a time as separate articles. If they are part of a series you could place short summaries to each novel in the series in a series article. Or if you are just about to write a quick line or two, place those temporarily in the author article. Just don't write tiny articles which are no help to anyone. These will have people jumping all over for small amounts of information. Doesn't help much, but there it is. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You could start with augmenting the author article a bit more. At least give it a decent bibliography. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Version_1.0_Editorial_Team_cooperation

Tag added to give a home for the WP:1.0 co-operation mentioned. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment question

I'm a little confused about the assessment process. Does the discussion at the talk pages mean that I can tag articles stub, start, or B-class without waiting for the assessment process, and should I? If not, should I use some other tag to identify stubs? Thanks, TheronJ 15:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - this is a brand new facility for our project so the "Assessment Department" page isn't ready yet - so use your best "objective" assessement hat and set to. It is not cast in stone so others can rework as needed later - welcome aboard the assessment train. Also another parameter of "importance" will follow soon. See Talk:The Lord of the Rings for an example, but it is not functional yet. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Critique (FA)

The infobox at the top of the project page it states that:

Critique (Featured Article): None current - "8 achieved"

Is there a list of those anywhere? Grey Shadow 05:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they should all be on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Worklist. Alos they are within the new assesment catagory system that I am working on which can be found here, Category:FA-Class novel articles. Cheers. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline for books

Sorry if this has already been posted but a few users are trying to propose a set of notability guidelines for books. Comments by users involved in the novels project would be very welcome. Pascal.Tesson 05:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessing the notability scale

Regarding this new addition to the WikiProjectNovels banner ... how can this be achieved while maintaining NPOV? For example, as a fan of the genre I consider Meet the Tiger far more notable than "fill in the blank" which I might consider overrated and not all that important. While someone might say "fill in the blank" deserves to the rated higher than Meet the Tiger because they might consider it an unimportant work... I'm a little puzzled. 23skidoo 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the criteria being put together at the location linked to in the submission above. If you have and still have that question then the best thing is to indicate that on it's talk page as that is where the debate on all this is being worked out. Please do get envolved as so far none of the contributers seem to be part of WP:Books or WP:Novels although I may be wrong. Our voice needs to be heard. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where to look. It's rather confusing. The links I find just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment and all that's there is a comment by you saying there's more work to be done. Where exactly is the criteria being discussed? If I'm not alone in being confused, that might explain the lack of input. Personally I think rating notability is a terrible Pandora's Box of an idea. Rating the quality of an article isn't much better. Personally I don't think we should go there in either case and I will say so at the appropriate venue if I'm pointed in the proper direction. 23skidoo 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This assessment aspect is outside of the remit of any one WikiProject to step out of, we need to be envolved to be able to contribute. Whilst I hear what you are saying and I have bundles of sympathy with your point of view and I in fact I find I am pretty much of the same opinion, however this is a overarchy Wikipedia thing. It relates to WP:1.0 and WP:V0.5 whic you might like to look into. And as it relates across "all" subject the idea of assessment might sit better with some subjects that others. Assessing the Arts (which Novels sit in) naturally becomes a might more subjective. However an encyclopedia like this must deal with these issues across "all" subject areas, or abandon WP:NPOV and wikipedia really goes some where other than an online co-operative encyclopedia. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Notability aspect is a related but different issue that again has been started outside the WikiProject and is just part of the Wikipedia push to pull to together standard policies for typing to agree notability. Wikipedia:Notability (books) is where this is being discussed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these issues are cast in stone (as with anything in Wikipedia), but you need to get stuck in and debate the issues in the appropriate arenas. The assessment thing is well established and we need to fit in with the global scheme. However the project assessment page is still "work in progress", on ice at least untill the structure is ready. Nearly but not quite. In brief the "importance" rating must be related to the issues of Literary significance and merit, which very much ties in with companion idea of notability. The "class" or "status" rating is related to how complete or good an article it is for the subject being covered. I.e. issues that affect whether we bung on a stub notice, expansion request, or rate an article as "Good" or "Featured". Does that help you untangle this at all. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I've already seen one case where I take issue. Please explain (on the applicable talk page, of course) why you rank The Last Words of Dutch Schultz as "low-importance". Not that I necessarily would classify it any higher ... but really, where does that ranking come from? I'm not going to take huge issue with ranking the quality of articles (though IMO that opens the door to personality conflicts between editors). But when it comes to ranking the books I don't want to have anything to do with that and will simply not support it, regardless of the rationale. 23skidoo 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Response, here. Talk:The Last Words of Dutch Schultz. As you point out an inexact science, art. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Angels and Demons category

I suggest that we create articles for all the characters for the book just like The Da Vinci Code --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think there is enough to say all these characters, but what about a Characters in "Angels and Demons" article. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very well --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Novel series & Novel sequences

Having recently been envolved with work on these as categories, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on add these to our Project Scope. That is not all Book series, not Fictional series as there is a WikiProject for that; just novels series. Persnoally I think it makes sense for us to work on these articles and subject areas. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does, those are just heirarchial categories... which I tagged last night with the project by the way! <g> // FrankB 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Announcing A Resurection

(forgive me for 'adapting this' from the Harry peoples talk message... RL is demanding attention!) This fellow (rather mature middle aged) fan of Harry has been buried in another favorite series, and it was suggested that I resurect the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series project as one means of developing standards. My 1632 series articles have potentially far more characters, places, and historical matters (it's an alternate history set back in the 1630's, which makes it another sort parallel universe like Harry's and Honorverse (not to mention most speculative fiction genre that become series), another series I contribute some.) than Harry Potter books, assuming she stops after seven novels.

I'm just getting started on 'blowing off the dust' on the Project page, so can use some help, and I'm sure as mature as this project looks, you will have some interesting input and experience on how to juggle, arrange, and format the myriad details that go into a deeply developed complex milieu such as these have become.

1632 series has some unique issues in that it is currently about 75:25 short fiction to Novels, but that will change rapidly as it is also a collaborative fiction experiment that involves literally dozens of authors, most of whom have been active participants helping the principle author and editor define the canon for the series... essentially research and development in matters historical and technical, as the works are making a serious attempt to keep realistic assumptions given the series premises—a small town of about 3,000 souls, Grantville, WV finds itself confronted with the religion based Thirty Year's War, Machievellian politics, and large armies. At the moment, five hardcover book releases are planned to my knowledge in the coming year—which is saying a lot at at least 400pp per book.

To add insult to injury, the works (by design) aren't published in the order of any particular timeline outside the 'main storyline threads', of which there are five... so this makes it like five sub-series, but one's in which the short fiction anthologies are canonical, a very unusual feature in a shared universe setting. But that's part of the great scope of the milieu, which is fascinating if you are at all interested in history and how the modern world came about—the effect of all that research and pre-planning via the internet. (It's not too great a stretch to think of it as a wikiproject, save the issues are the talk forums, and the article outputs are generated by individual or teams of writers working their own sub-projects.)

Enough of my problem, what I need is help defining standards from others involved in similar wikipedia tasks like yourselves (WikiProject Novels in general) for such a mixed series. So watchlist the talk page, and WP:WFs, sign on, and integrate your project cats, templates, etc. into Category:WikiProject Fictional series, list your Project on the see also there, along with it's cats (Being a project cat, the navigation from project to project is for us editors to use, not the general public, so WP:Btw!) so other fiction related editors can find your stuff, secrets, and vice versa.

I'd also like to point out an oxymoron of sorts. The WPP:Books is parent to all these heirarchially lower projects (Novels, series, etc.), yet has the smallest membership list of the lot. Makes no sense! Please sign up and ditto WPP:Novels, and WPP:series for news and contributions. Best regards to all! // FrankB 20:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On category pipesorting conventions

I need to add here, that I've done some organization stuff like the new shortcuts [[WPP:Books], WPP:Novels, WPP:series, and WP:WFs, and cross-linked some of the pertinent cats. Redirects (like those just listed) will show as '-' pipesorted (dash), Main daughters as space, templates under '!', though I haven't back tracked to verify consistancy yet, but it helps keep things straight. Technically, that sort of standard ought to be imposed from the WikiProject Books project and be consistant downwards. (As Pegship knows, I've been spending a lot of non-fiction edit time in the interwiki Wikimedia Commons and cross-project category organization and equalization, so these 'sort tokens' are fairly debugged, though a different 'system of symbols' is worth discussing... it just sort of happened over the last six weeks on the commons. Gotta run! // FrankB 20:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:NovelsWikiProject spam

I don't really oppose having these kind of templates on talk pages, they can be kinda useful, but using it to tell everyone what should be done about other articles is way too much, IMHO. If I go to a talk page, I don't want to be told that there's some other article that needs editing, and this really feels like spam for this WikiProject to me. So please, could this be removed from the template? --Conti|✉ 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You could of course just ignore those lines. I can encourage work on similar articles and isn't unknown on other projects (see {{WPBeatles}}). Ok what does everyone else think, quite happy to go with majority opinion on this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Encouraging people to work on similar articles shouldn't be the point of a talk page or the point of a WikiProject template. I don't know if other WikiProject-templates have similar "ads", I just think that's not a very good idea. And I don't see what I critizise on the Beatles-template. This is what I don't like. --Conti|✉ 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a link to a talk page that has what you're talking about please? plange 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here after seeing the template on Talk:Fight Club, if that's what you mean. That Travels with My Aunt needs an infobox might be true, but it just has nothing to do with the article and is totally irrelevant there. --Conti|✉ 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that since the Novels Project is fairly new, that the template containing 3 lines that offer suggestions on how the reader can help is not too out of line. As the articles are worked on, and the Project comes into its own, those three lines could be merged into a "click here to see how you can help" link. So I think good for now, but probably remove/change in the future. PeregrineV 17:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What you suggest about a "click here to see how you can help" seems like a good way to proceed, any objection to us doing that now!? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that. It lets the people decide and doesn't force possibly unwanted suggestions on them. --Conti|✉ 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What you suggest about a "click here to see how you can help" has now been done - I trust everyone is happen with that. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pattern Templates

I would first like to thank you guys for the pattern templates. I had been working on a group of articles with little idea of how to structure them, or what to include, but they make a huge difference. I was just wondering if anyone could point me to some good examples of articles using the article or character pattern templates? I would like to see how other people have used them, so that I can continue to improve my articles. Elric of Grans 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple from a quick look at the worklist that stand out would be The Mauritius Command and Ice (novel). Grey Shadow 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, those cleared things up a little! Elric of Grans 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Film and Book?

Came across an article on a book that had an info box for the movie-- what to do? The Postman plange 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As it is a novel article primarily with no independant "film" article (for that one anyway). Add the Book infobox above the film one. It maybe that the article could be split, but looking at it's length that might not be justified. Have a word with User:Pegship who is hot on the issue of Film / Novel relationships. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Around the World in Eighty Days

Can someone from the project help to bring this book into the Novels project? Specifically add talk page templates, and clean up the section headers and ordering so it is standard. I've done some work on the article, and it is a very important book one of the most widely read in the world. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Made a start - more for others to do - should be more "allusions from other works". Also should be more to put in "lit. significance". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collaborations

What do people think of starting a Wikipedia:Collaboration of the Week or Month for Novels. Would anybody be interested. For more information on the notionc try looking at Wikipedia:Collaborations and look around other projects. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

Everyone who wished to help would have to obtain a copy of the novel in question, preferably the same edition and then read it; and as I believe that we here at WP:NOVELS have fairly eclectic tastes, even reaching a consensus on which novel to collaborate on might be difficult. If we were to do this, I would have to say that a monthly collaboration certainly seems more feasible, possible biweekly.

Having said all that, I would actually like to do this if we could get enough people to assist and make it worthwhile. -- Gizzakk 12:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm up for itplange 14:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to participate in this, but would like a sort of project assignment in mind when reading the novel. It wouldn't preclude adding information, but if I knew I had to work on the setting, for example, I could read the novel with an eye towards that.PeregrineV 03:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Me three, at least for the novels I'm interested in. Throw up a page; if it doesn't make it, it doesn't make it, but there's no harm in trying.--ragesoss 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make it monthly and have the new novel posted on the NovelWikiProject newsletter. Grey Shadow 01:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

And my two cents. Maybe we could try to establish a group of collaborations per month. Say, for example, a mainline novel, a romance novel, a science fiction/fantasy novel, and a detective/mystery novel. This would allow those individuals whose interested aren't as broad-based to participate as well. I however would be quite happy to take part, regardless of the format. And I would agree that it would be useful if we could all choose or be designated particular areas of specilization, like characters, setting, historical background, whatever. Badbilltucker 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bringing this forward, as this is an ongoing polling for support - we are maybe just about close to the point where there are a few interested people who can work on this notion. Bear in mind you won't "have" to have read the book to contribute. However a unbiased, WP:NOR perspective is also very important here. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

sounds good to me, but we first we have to decide what novel(s) to work on. I was actually loking at The Mystery of the Yellow Room by Gaston Leroux - the origional locked room mystery; at the moment it is barely more than a stub. Any other suggestions anyone? -- Gizzakk 22:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest working on something from the list on the Worklist, but The Mystery of the Yellow Room is also a good choice as it's readable online for free at Project Gutenberg. Grey Shadow 03:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

List, or article?

I have a question on the difference between a list of characters and an article on characters. I am planning on making a page on the characters from the Boogiepop series (as per WP:FICT), and am considering using the format they have on the Japanese article (Characters of Boogiepop series). Should my article be considered a list ('List of characters in the Boogiepop series') or and article ('Boogiepop series characters') if I go with that format? Some of the more significant characters will likely get more text than the Japanese article does, but they will mostly be short one or two line descriptions. Elric of Grans 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• A list would probably be a better idea if you were going to use it to link to other pages on each character; if you are planning on having them all on the same page with descriptors on the same page as you said, it would probably be an article. -- Gizzakk 02:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan to do a bit of both. I will link to full articles on major characters (eg Boogiepop), but others will just be described here. If the majority of the characters are only described on this page, with some having a paragraph and a link to their main article, would that suffice for article status? Elric of Grans 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend an article in similar format to Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series. with links using {{Main}} article tags to the major character articles. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty well what I was looking at doing. Thanks for the help! Elric of Grans 08:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Sorry about all the questions recently. I am not sure where to direct these two questions, but they indirectly relate to articles within this WikiProject, so hopefully this is the right place. Firstly, article assessment snuck up on me from nowhere a while back, and I do not really know how they work (beyond their descriptions of what they mean). I understand the process for GA/FA, but what about the others? Can anyone assess an article as Stub/Start (and possibly B-Class), or can only specified people do this? If the latter, how does that work? This could probably be answered by a wikilink, but searching has not helped. Secondly, I have had an article on Peer Review for a week without comment: is there something that can be done in a case like this, or do I just give up on PR and skip to nomination for GA to find out what is wrong with it? Elric of Grans 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment for the assesment criteria and how to add the classifications, I am still not sure about the importance criteria, though. Also, for the peer review, it might be a good idea to post it elsewhere and ask people if they would mind reviewing the article. -- Gizzakk 17:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Even over on the WP:1.0 team fron there appears to be a push to change from the term "importance" to "priority2 Which far better reflects the meaning. i.e. the priority of the article for assessment purposes. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the page. I had been looking around in the general space and never once thought that the WikiProject might have a page dedicated to the topic! With the Peer Review, by "elsewhere", do you mean talk pages, or some sort of a broader community forum? Elric of Grans 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anywhere, I suppose - I was actually looking for the article you wanted reviewed, and I could not determine what it was (through you userpage.) It would probably be a good idea to mention it as well. -- Gizzakk 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It was the Boogiepop series (the one marked `On Peer Review' on my Userpage). If there is no particular etiquette here, I shall leave this as an informal request, and drop a line elsewhere too. Thanks for your help! Elric of Grans 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub? You ain't kidding!

Just ran across the shortest stub I think I've ever seen! I just finished reading it and so thought I'd see if it had an article... Got to run to bed, but will work on expanding this poor thing... -plange 04:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag

Just ran across this. Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC Grey Shadow 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Word spreads fast. Here's a bit more info:

There is a dispute on whether or not spoiler tags are appropriate for Wikipedia. Some editors wish to remove spoiler tags while other editors wish to keep them and/or update their guidelines and appearance. A request for comment has been started at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC with a structured discussion page on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. All editors are invited to share their input on any or all of the issues being discussed. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

novel templates

These templates seem to be of use for us. Not sure where to list them. Grey Shadow 23:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What to type	What it makes	Where it goes
{{isfdb name | id=Arthur_C._Clarke | name=Arthur C. Clarke }} Talk	Arthur C. Clarke at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{isfdb series | id=The_Stainless_Steel_Rat | title=The Stainless Steel Rat}} Talk	The Stainless Steel Rat series listing at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{isfdb title | id=2485 | title=2001: A Space Odyssey}} Talk	2001: A Space Odyssey title listing at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{iblist name | id=2 | name=Arthur C. Clarke}} Talk	Arthur C. Clarke at the Internet Book List	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{iblist series | id=69 | title=The Stainless Steel Rat}} Talk	The Stainless Steel Rat at the Internet Book List	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{iblist title | id=2 | title=2001: A Space Odyssey}} Talk	2001: A Space Odyssey at the Internet Book List	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{ibdof name | id=10| name=Arthur C. Clarke}} Talk	Arthur C. Clarke at the Internet Book Database of Fiction	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{ibdof series | id=46 | title=The Stainless Steel Rat}} Talk	The Stainless Steel Rat series listing at The Internet Book Database of Fiction	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom
{{ibdof title | id=94 | title=2001: A Space Odyssey}} Talk	2001: A Space Odyssey publication history at The Internet Book Database of Fiction	Article (typ. in external links) near bottom

Not quite sure what you mean - the obvious use of the data refered to in these template references would be on the author article or series articles. The use of the {{ibdof name}}, {{ibdof name}}, {{ibdof series}}, {{ibdof series}}, etc templates may well be worked up somewhere wiki wide, but perhaps also a general NovelsWikiProject "template" page that someone else has suggested, and / or as part of the ArticleTemplate documentation. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First Edition Info

I know this has come up before, but I keep coming across articles where people have used the info from later editions in the infobox and havn't denoted it as such; just wanted to remind people to do this or look up the first edition info. -- Gizzakk 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle-earth

Middle-earth is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of two extra fields on "Infobox Book"

Two more field have been proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Two new fields to infobox which warrent everyone's attention. Please get over there and place you views. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Giver

The Giver is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thunderball

Thunderball is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)