Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Someone needs to remove the ((cattoolarge)) tag from this category, it is down to 400 articles, from an original 1500... the congrats to all who assisted in sorting these... Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on expanding an unfortunately unlisted stub, Shade's Children, as I slowly bring together what I hope is a good article. Since I'm rewriting the article and have not yet finished (busy), I've left what I have (haven't posted it in the mainspace because it's quite unfinished) at User:Nihiltres/Sandbox. Since I'm new to the general field of writing and improving articles on novels, I was hoping that someone here could lend me a hand or point me to a help page... -thanks, Nihiltres 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note, but this would have to be one of my favorite books of all time; I was planning on getting around to it as soon as I found my copy which has mysteriously gone missing; so if there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. Most of the stuff you need to know about writing novel articles is accessible right from the WP:NOVELS main page; I would use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate as a guideline, and just check through some of the articles that have been featured to see how they are set up. -- Gizzakk 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also as soon as it is in the main namespace we can list the article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Worklist and point others to it.

One editor has apparently taken exception to the inclusion of spoiler material in one of the classic novel articles. Great Expectations. While he has done quite a lot of sterling work on content improvement on the article, which I would applaude. I think we should take a view on the approach he has taken on the plot and spoiler material. Please take a look and record here what you think. To declare myself I think that the spoiler notices are quite adequate and that the plot introduction is the section in which to place a non spoiler plot description which would act as a taster for the novel. This is reliant on good placing of {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} notices, of course. However I am quite prepared to conceed this veiw is the majority of editors think we should work in this new way, in particuar if we are writing of a novel "major" of notability. Views please! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is not acceptable. The plot description of Great Expectations is neither notable nor large enough to merit an article of its own. The content must positively be integrated into the article and the Plot Introduction/Plot Summary format followed. I'm nominating the spin-off article for deletion. Loom91 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree - but do you not think this might be a slight an over reaction. Is it not worth seing how others view this first, before taking this approach. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Such an intense reaction, Loom91! Since you're calling for a delete rather than a merge, please tell us whether you are objecting to the material or simply the fact that it is in a separate section. -- Cecropia 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As the editor who made the spoiler/plot section on Great Expectations, let me make a few points.

First my major justification: I personally believe that spoilers should not be in articles about literature at all. Wikipedia is not Sparq Notes, it is an encyclopedia. As with a book review, an encyclopedia should not be giving readers a synopsis of the book. This cheats the academic reader of the opportunity to form his/her own conclusions about the plot and the theme. There are also people who read literature for pleasure (including students who must also read it as coursework) and shouldn't have the "secrets" of the plot revealed. This is especially true of a writer like Dickens, who introduces many characters who later figure in the plot in surprising and unexpected ways.

Having said that, it is apparent that including spoilers is virtually Wikipedia style, so how do we deal with them? To put them between spoiler notices is almost the worst possible situation. We ask the reader to stop reading and skip over material looking for the ending notice. This is like telling someone: "There is an elephant in the middle of the room. If you don't want to see it, walk around it and don't look at it." Or perhaps more to the point: "There is an unwrapped gift for you on the coffee table. If you don't want to know what it is, don't look that way."

Now it would seem that a major objection to isolating spoilers is that all article material should be in the same place. Why?

• Wikipedia often forks articles, such as history and politics:
  • Because the article is too long
  • Because a section is too long and dominates too much of the article
  • Because a section presents a variant to the overall article (an important event, a major controversy) and should be treated in detail as a sub-article.
  • Because a section details a controversy that would not flow well with the main article.
• Other encyclopedias (I'm thinking Britannica's treatment of the same material) tell you about the significance of the plot in literature, the place of the book in the author's canon and in literature in general, and major unique features of the work without ever giving away key points that would amount to spoilers.
• Sources that do contain spoilers are generally those that students consult in order to find out the key elements and conclusions that others readers wouldn't want (and perhaps the students themselves shouldn't rely on, for that matter). So when you but these study guides you know what you are getting. An encyclopedia is for all readers.
• Most study guides (including on-line ones like eNotes) divide up the material to a much greater extent than to simply place spoiler plot in a different section. For example, eNotes typically has these separated text-based sections (example is Great Expectations):

1. One-Page Summary
2. Summary and Analysis (chapter-by-chapter)
3. Quizzes (chapter-by-chapter)
4. Characters
5. Themes
6. Style
7. Historical Context
8. Critical Overview
9. Character Analysis

As I said at the beginning, I dislike any but the mildest spoilers. I forked GE when I saw the "Characters" section telling you up front Compeyson's key role. That is much too much for general readership. I think a separate "spoilers" section is both appropriate and necessary. If someone clicks through to that section, they know what they are getting into. -- Cheers, Cecropia 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• No good reason for a plot description fork for any novel article. There are spoiler tags to warn readers that plot or ending details follow. That is sufficient. I'm recommending GE fork be merged back into main article.--Isotope23 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, your response is non-responsive. -- Cecropia 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • With respect, what is non-responsive about it? I don't think you've laid out a strong case for deviating from what has been standard practice for novel articles. After reading everything above, it appears that your primary argument for a spoiler/content fork is that you dislike spoilers to begin with, but conceding that they exist, you don't like the spoiler tags. In my opinion, that is not sufficient reason to scrap what is a fairly longstanding method of style in Wikipedia novel articles. I disagree with you plain and simple, hence my AfD comment and comment here.--Isotope23 19:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• We have spoiler tags for a reason; a separate article with plot details for every novel is confusing, messy and unnecessary. Disagree with this proposal, and voted to merge back in the GE material. --Stbalbach 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't particularly like the current spoiler system that is in place, and believe that Cecropia's approach seems like a better method. Unfortunately, the new separate plot detail spoiler-filled articles will likely end up deleted. Is there some method of adding "Spoiler" to that table of contents, so that someone knows where to skip down to without having to "risk" reading something they don't want to read? Or: maybe put that spoiler section in a gray box (easy to read, don't make it too gray)? MikeBriggs 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the spoiler system that is in place now doesnt really work, at least the tag could be a bit bigger and fill the entire line to provide a better border; I actually think that the separate page is a better idea; but it seems to me that most people do not wish an article to be included unless it is completely necessary; I dont know if there is some actual rule that says this, being a relative newbie; but it seems to me that an awful lot of people are overzealous about this; I mean is a spoiler page for a novel like Great Expectations any less important than a page on a play company in Newark, New Jersey that performed twice before going bankrupt? I dont believe that in this case it would even be redundant, as the information is not included on the main page in the format presented. Anyways, I think that something should be done on pages where the plot description gives everything away. -- Gizzakk 03:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree that there could be a better system for spoiler notification than there is now, I do not agree with the idea of separating the spoiler-containing plot summary, character descriptions, etc. from the main page of the novel. I have a feeling that, particularly if these separate plot pages are of low quality, they will be tagged for deletion as fancruft or otherwise non-notable. I agree that making notes in the table of contents and making spoiler-containing material easily visible would be possible ways of solving, at least in part, this problem. My main thought on plot summaries and spoilers is that a basic guideline should be that a reader of the plot summary should be able to view it and say to him/herself "oh, yeah, that's what the book was about," after having not read it for a time. The plot summary should serve as a reminder of the plot to someone who has already read the book, not as a detail-filled blow-by-blow retelling of the book. If you want a detailed description of the book, well... read the book! I, personally, have found the plot summaries of the books very useful, since there are many occasions on which I will remember the general gist of a book that I once read, but nothing beyond a vague memory of what it was about. The novel plot summaries serve by stimulating my memory, and often by allowing me to decide whether I wish to reread a book or not. In summary, I feel that there should be a better system for spoiler notification, but that it should not involve separation of the spoiler plot summary into an individual page, since a clear, concise, and not all-revealing plot summary does serve a useful purpose in Wikipedia's novel articles. Abhorsen327 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; summaries on different pages would be too radical a change, and one that would introduce more flaws into the system than it would correct - not to mention the inconvenience of having to change pages to view more of the same content (just imagine if you were one of the people who still has dialup!?) Another issue is spoiler warning size and format - but that has been argued before, in depth, eventually producing the small, but bold warning that exists today. To put it honestly, by the way, most people do not read encyclopedia articles on books they have not read - unless they are students attempting to get away with not reading a book. I also believe that this issue cannot ever be perfectly resolved - the only way I can think of to avoid the problem anywhere near 100% would involve a "hide/unhide" button for spoiler content, which would take a long time to code and twice as long to implement. Sorry people, but this issue is a stickler. Nihiltres 04:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I often read articles on books to decide whether I will like to read them, and I find that it is quite easy to skip over the spoiler notices. I also read articles on books when I don't expect to read the book but want to know what it is about, in which case I really like a detailed plot summary. Frankly, I find the current spoiler notices to be quite adequate. There's no reason to fork Plot Summary. I must also note one possible exception I can think of: The Hobbit. There's a notable point in the plot summary (the change between the editions) that is notable in itself and can be analysed, making a fork conceivable. Loom91 07:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia would be fundmentally hurt if we spun off spoilers into their own articles. This could essentially double the number of articles of every single film, television show, or book. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encylopedia, "protecting" readers by breaking off the core of the plots of the story would make most entries have two useless articles, one about the media in question, and one the plot/characters. Frankly, if someonebook/movie/television articles they haven't seen yet, they won't have anything spoiled. If they haven't and they go to the page anwyay, they just have to deal with the problems it causes themselves. Radagast83 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't understand the sheer horror so many are expressing over the idea of having an extra article for certain published works. You say "Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia," but look at any other encyclopedia, and observe how many articles there are on different aspects of an important work. Look at imdb, and see how many separate pages there are on different aspects of a given film; e.g., for the film Great Expectations (1946) (one film of the subject of this discussion) and you will find these subject headings, each of which is a separate page:[1]

• main details
• combined details
• full cast and crew
• company credits

Awards and Reviews

• user comments
• external reviews
• awards & nominations
• user ratings
• recommendations
• message board

Plot and Quotes

• plot summary
• plot keywords
• Amazon.com summary
• memorable quotes

Fun Stuff

• trivia
• goofs
• crazy credits
• alternate versions
• movie connections

Other Info

• merchandising links
• box office & business
• release dates
• filming locations
• technical specs
• laserdisc details
• DVD details
• literature listings
• news articles

Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, Wikipedia is full of subsidiary articles on any number of articles. And what is the downside? That someone who wants to see spoilers will have to click any extra link?

I'll also bring up another point: This doesn't apply to the classics, which are in the public domain, but since you bring up filmed work (and this also applies to in-copyright books and TV) including spoilers at all may involve serious copyvios. We don't have the right to reveal the endings or significant plot turns of any copyrighted work, if there is any chance it might diminish the author's rights to the work by possibly diminishing sales of that work. If the work contains any kind of "secret" in the ending, as almost any suspenseful work does, revealing that secret (e.g., "The Sixth Sense," "The Ring," etc., may scotch a person's interest in buying or viewing the work. 17 USC 107 specifies that in considering whether publishing part of a copyrighted work is "fair use" you must consider "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."[2]. What is the value of including spoilers, and including them in the main body of the article, that we may be cheating both readers and authors. And for what? -- Cecropia 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are pushing this so hard. Who will this benefit? Lazy people who are reading an article for a book/film they have yet to read? High Schoool/College students who are trying to skip out on reading the story? If someone is that careless to read an article on a work before viewing what it is discussing first, well then it is their loss if the experience is tainted. And speaking of subsidiary articles, those are spun off because they have substance in and of themselves, at least the ones that should exist. Most of the time they are spun off only due to the article being too large itself, or because a specific section might apply to multiple articles and not just the one it may have been part of. If we "legally" can't post spoilers for some works, then they shouldn't be in here at all in all cases even in the public domain, either they stay in the article or they should not exist on here at all. Radagast83 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And I, in turn, cannot understand the importance placed on forcing permitted spoilers (IOW, not copyvios) into the main text of an article. I didn't say that (I think) that all plot details must be in a separate place, but elaboration of details that one would ordinarily want to read they reveal spoiler material should be. For example, a "non-spoiler" description of the two convicts who are intentionally minimized at the beginning of the novel Great Expectations but later figure importantly in the story:

• Abel Magwitch: – a convict, who Pip treats kindly.
• Compeyson: another convict, and enemy to Magwitch

This is what you would see in any basic introudction of the story. Then the Spoiler version:

• Abel Magwitch – a convict, who Pip treats kindly, and who turns out to be his actual benefactor.
• Compeyson – another convict, and enemy to Magwitch, who was Miss Havisham's intended husband.

Keep in mind that a non-cheating student or reader will want to see an outline of a play or story they are newly approaching, in order to have a framework for plugging in their own understanding, and that is fair to provide. Under the current spoiler notice system, they either have to skip over this information entirely, or read more than they may want to. Think of the mystery "And then there were none" (AKA "Ten Little Indians"), the way Wikipedia is now, we would give away the murderer, destorying the suspense of the entire story. -- Cecropia 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• IMHO, the best solution would be something in wikipedia itself that "collapsed" spoiler sections until a reader expanded them - barring that, I would vote for forking novel spoilers. The current template has non-spoiler stuff both above and below the spoiler sections, and I'm not sure how someone who wanted to stay spoiler free could do so. (I guess I agree that if you pick up a paper encyclopedia article on Great Expectations, you're going to get spoiled, but since we can protect readers from spoilers, I think we should.) TheronJ 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding Great Expectations, it's a special case because its ending is famous matter of controversy, and Dickens altered the ending very slightly under pressure from his publisher. In many books, the general outcome is almost predetermined and knowing that in advance doesn't particularly impede your enjoyment of the work. However, the more important question is existential: Why do we have articles on Novels here? The answer varies according to the audience. In the end, Wikipedia is service to readers, whether in selecting literature to read, or giving them an idea of what a long difficult, out of print work is about. So, for instance, Elmer Gantry is larger than life, and a gateway to many other books about the excesses of the modern preacher. On the other hand, The Case of the Drowsy Mosquito, a Perry Mason novel, is not a major social statement, and the reader of a summary of this in-print novel is mostly deciding if he/she wants to read it. However for a real idea of novel summaries in a pre-Wiki context that had withstood the tests of time and popularity, it is worthwhile to consider Masterpieces of World Literature (first published in 1949), which originally appeared in a somewhat different form as Masterplots, and has subsequently been supplemented by several additional volumes. This book is structured in a very useful way which deftly avoids the entire subject of spoilers while still appealing both to readers who want a complete account of the story (which might be a violation of copyright for modern works), and those who merely want to get an idea if it's the sort of book they want to read or to assess its impact on the world. Here's its setup,

  1. Type of Work — not restricted to novels but including Greek legends, Shakespearean plays and more
  2. Author (name and dates of birth and death)
  3. Type of plot — comparable to what we'd now call a genre
  4. Time of plot — year or era
  5. Locale
  6. First published
  7. Principal characters -- just their names in order of appearance and at most 5 words about them — In a Wikipedia context these could contain links to subsidiary articles on some of the characters
  8. Critique — This section contains first of all a description of who it has appealed to in the past, a description of the book's atmosphere (for instance "The story if ull of pleasant places and pleasant people ...."), some exceptional attributes of the book, and finally how the book first achieved fame (featured in some magazine, championed by another author, etc).
  9. The Story — This part tells the story in detail and could be considered to contain spoilers of course, but for an article of of Wikipedia length, a detailed summary of only foundational chapters plus a fast overview of the remainder would generally be enough both to allow a subsequent reader of the book not to feal cheated, and yet allow someone else who merely wants to understand a book he's never going to read to see what he/she is missing. Modus Vivendi 11:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for Peer Review Wikipedia:Peer review/Grendel (novel)/archive1. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxIncomplete talk page, as deals with more than that page. The first part, though, the "written section" that is referred to is the written section at the beginning and at the top of the InfoboxIncomplete page.

Moved section: Just curious, I suppose, but why was the date arrangement changed for the book infobox used for the novel project (henceforth referred to as Novel infobox) from the book infobox template (henceforth referred to as book infobox) (Moving from August 23, 2005 to 23 August 2005)? And are we supposed to use the Novel infobox or the Book infobox, because the two infoboxes are not the same (more information requested with the Book infobox, and date is in Month Day, Year mode).

On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxIncomplete page, in the written section, the documentation leads to the Book infobox documentation [[Template:Infobox Book]], as opposed to the novel infobox documentation (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxCode (though that says book infobox and not novel infobox). And the notes on how to use the box leads to the article template instead of notes.

Looking at the Tools section in the column, Book Infobox leads to the Book infobox template pattern, but at the top of the column, in the information section, Book infobox (pattern) leads to the novel infobox pattern.

Hopefully the above is understandable. I've been slightly confused on which style box to use, and which date pattern to follow. Oh, and I didn't go ahead and change anything on my own, because, I'm not sure what is correct. Or, for that matter, that there actually is any problem as opposed to it being currently correct, and I'm just misreading the pages.

In addition: I believe that an example, like at the Infobox documentation page, would be quite helpful. I have been putting the Hardcover, Paperback and the like wording in initial capitalization, (like in the Master and Commander infobox, which I've been somewhat using as an "example"), but those particular words have been edited to initial lowercase. I don't particular mind what pattern we use, but it would be helpful if there was just the one, and an example were to be placed in the template section. MikeBriggs 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok one issue at a time, what make you think there are 2 infoboxes. I know of only one {{Infobox Book}}. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Click on the link found at the top of the column on the project page (the column that starts: "Novels WikiProject") titled "→ Book infobox (pattern)" that leads to what I've referred to as "Novel infobox" above. Now go to the section of the column titled "Tools". Now click on Book infobox. Those two boxes are almost exactly alike, but not (one has book weight; and they have different documentation). Now click go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxIncomplete page. Click on documentation [Template:Infobox Book]], that leads to documentation and code that is different that the template used for both Master and Commander (which I've been using somewhat as an example, mostly the dates are differently arranged) and Infobox needed template, which also has the dates differently arranged (I guess the only thing different is the date arrangement, and that extra "size_weight" line; and whether or not Hardcover/Paperback is supposed to be capitalized on the media_type line, or not capitalized). I'm sorry, I'm probably not wording my confusion clearly enough. MikeBriggs 15:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I see. There is "one" Infobox, Book. This is being used by all number of people, mostly from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Books and ourselves Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, but it is one infobox. The generic documentation is on the Main Template page Template:Infobox Book, with more detail behind it on the discussion page Template Talk:Infobox Book, this needs to describe "all" possible uses and practices of the template. "Our" documentation for it's use is as part of the article pattern template Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate and a simple cut and past example for "just" the infobox Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxCode ready to be filled in "in situ". Does that help or confuse further. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Size_Weight was left out from "Our" pattern as we (I mainly) thought it was a bit unnecessary. Also you will find that we don't include "Subject" as that is meant for Non-Fiction books. WE instead use "Genre". So Full template documentation and our "patterns" will of necessity be different. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation, Hardback or hardback. Me being slack I think. We should discuss the ideal and stick with it. Also bear in mind that the link should be direct and that links to "Hardcover", which I hadn't noticed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see. Thanks. The Hardcover/Hardback/hardback issue came up because a book I was watching (and for which I updated/added infobox had the Hardcover/Paperback section changed to hardcover/paperback - removed capitalization). I've added an example to "our" documentation. If you think it doesn't belong, or doesn't help, please remove it. Thanks for the help. The overall Infobox uses capitalization for Hardcover, Paperback on the media_type line, so I put them in as Hardcover/Paperback in the example. MikeBriggs 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Must dash but I have just tweeked the "non key" binding references to lower case, leaving the main as upper. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Looks good to me. MikeBriggs 16:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

We at the Military history WikiProject have been trying to clean up the strucure of Category:War somewhat (our working draft, if anyone is curious); would there be any problem with moving Category:War novels under Category:War art rather than under Category:War directly? Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really an objection, but I do think that "art" doesn't quite cover it if you start to include novels, could we consider a change to "Art and Literature". My thinking here is that there are two very different basic definitons of the work are one very general which covers anything which is not really a science (which I think is the one you are thinking of), and one which implies quite strongly in many the visual arts. At a stretch some might think to include music. So if this option is not appropriate, maybe a compromise of "War arts" might imply more than the visual. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections to renaming the category from me; but you would be in a better position to decide what the best name is. How are novels usually categorized? Do we have any top-level categories whose names we can mimic? Kirill Lokshin 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the content of "War art", I think the change to "Art and Literature" would be best. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 19:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxNeeded has a new list of Stuff to Do, if infoboxes are your thing. Thanks to Eagle for compiling it. Her Pegship 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• The correct link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/NovelsWithoutInfoboxEagle (talk) (desk) 03:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a n00b in this particular project. Despite looking around, the answer to which/how many editions to reference in the infobox hasn't been adequately answered for me yet. My first effort is improving the article on Arrowsmith (novel). Details on the first edition are clearly hard to come by; details on every edition that has appeared since then are just as hard. So, for example, in the Media tag, do I list every medium this book has ever appeared in, or the medium it originally appeared in (hardback)? Other parameters are more manageable because there aren't that many editions of this particular book. Thinking about public domain works, though: do I list multiple sizes, weights, and ISBNs?

And of course you are welcome to comment on Arrowsmith once I actually write a non-crappy replacement. :) Spamguy 06:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Preference should begiven to the first edition - if not available give the first major edition for the nation of origin. If unavavilable a HB and PB edition of major note. Not a full list, that sort of this should be listed in the "Release details" section in the body of the article. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the instructions inside the template area for creating a new article to be more comprehensible, but I could simplify them greatly if the template were simply divided into to three pieces:

• Copy Template 2 (the main article) into a new article
• Write and save your article according to the directions therein
• Copy Template 1 (the infobox template) to the beginning, fill in the missing available information and delete the rest; save
• Click on the Discussion tab of your new article to create a Talk page for your article; insert a WikiProject line (from the single line in Template 3 (could this be automated?);save
• Edit your main article and remove the "redbox" line (the one telling you to create a Talk page); save. Alernatively the redbox part could be excised completely from Template 2 Modus Vivendi 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is sure to be one of the most visited articles on novels in wikipedia, but surprisingly it's in a sorry state. Currently a poorly organised collection of random tidbits of information, the article doesn't even contain a plot summary! I think this is an ideal venue to showcase the quality of our project. I'm currently short on time, so some help will be appreciated. Because of the book's special stature, it can't be made to conform to the template article exactly, but it will be a good idea to mix-n-match and give the article a complete overhaul. Thanks. Loom91 17:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This I definitely agree with; this article is a mess; and whatever it needs it needs a LOT of - we are going to have to do some preliminary planning for this and figure out what to keep, add, and throw away - I for one think that that whole references/ see also bit at the bottom could use some scaling down and the whole body needs a total makeover. -- Gizzakk 02:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll start by giving it the infobox. And we can go from there. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We now have a subpage (see Talk:The Da Vinci Code) for work related to this effort. It may be used for coordination, talk and drafting. I created it to keep the clutter off this or the articles talk page. Loom91 07:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

HAM 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This may have been discussed before, in which case please let me know what transpired...I notice we have a Gothic novel stub category, but none for the broader category of horror novels. I keep running across stubs that could be sorted as horror-novel-stub and longing for such an option. Shall I go to Stub Proposals and propose one? Her Pegship 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This would probably be a good idea, I hadn't noticed that we lacked a stub for this, but there would certainly be usage if we had one. Just make sure that if it gets approved, you go and change a few appropriate stubs so that it doesn't get listed on stubs for deletion. User:Gizzakk

I would support this if there really are enough articles to warrent it - if you want to propose is to the Stubs people then please do. Personally I was waiting until Eagle did his thing with a list to try and determine if there really were enough example of "horror novels" of small article size to warrent one. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There are; I found them by using Cat-Scan to look for articles that have both the "horror novel" and "novel-stub" categories. I'll put up a request later. Thanks for responding! Her Pegship 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Request is up at Stub proposals. Cheers, Her Pegship 20:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure if this goes here, but are there any clarifying definitions for the difference between a gothic novel and a horror novel? I just finished a horror novel, I think, but maybe it was gothic? Thanks PeregrineV 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

the sub page of this project "/infobox_needed" seems to have been superseded by "/NovelsWithoutInfobox"-- if nobody objects I am going to change the link under "work in progress" in the project box. Matt Kurz 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

they are doing different things, the first is a manually generated list and can pick up articles intelligently, the second is automatically generated and is liable to faulty and incomplete selection. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as possible, I suggest using a first-edition cover in the write-up, or a fascimile of the opening page. At least it would look more authentic, and certainly more interesting, than any tom-dick-or-harry cover on the front. Mandel 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I had assumed this was the general consensus and that most people in fact did this. Was I wrong in assuming this? If that is the case we are going to have to go through and change an awful lot of book covers. -- Gizzakk 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the norm - just make me think though we are working blithly that way and I don't think it is documented anywhere. I will have a look at our pattern templates and guidelilnes and see what we need to add. Thanks for raising this, there is always room to improve. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Would an embedded review of the change in covers over time be interesting, relevant or desired in articles on novels? some authors or publishing houses have shown particular care and pickiness over the choice of cover design, and this grows more interesting when such a novel is reprinted and repackaged many times over several decades. such discussion may illuminate changes in design with respect to literature. however, this may be dead weight for articles covering most novels. Lee.shoe 03:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea to me - what type of novels had you in mind. You could try mocking one up, either in your userspace from an article or actually change one as you propose and let us have a look. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It can't always be possible to have a first edition cover available. If you look at the 52 novel articles I have created for the Simon Templar series, as of today only about a half dozen have first edition covers available. The rest have come from various other editions. I see no problem with doing this so long as it is clearly stated that the edition illustrated is not the first edition. 23skidoo 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, we should just try for the first edition as a base. We should then attempt as original as we can get. If not a generally well accepted, widely available recent cover. All this is a little subjective I know. But basicallly I completely agree with you. I don't see any response to the original proposal by User:Lee.shoe though. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This might already be covered, but is (Book) or (Novel) the preferred means of disambiguation? I've been looking through the catagories and it looks nearly interchangeable. Does one help our bots over another?--Muliebris 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We are a novels project so we deal in Novels and they are written up as "The Novel Title" by preference, but if there is a disambig conflict then "The Novel Title (novel)" is used, with lower case "(novel)". If there is already one of those something like "The Novel Title (Author Name novel)". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the best way to incorporate the ISBN into a novel article? In the text, in a "See also" or where? All the novel articles that I looked at didn't actually include this basic piece of information...Stevage 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See the "Infobox Book" which has a field for ISBN. (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/InfoboxCode and then the "Release details" section included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate. Anymore questions, did you have particular articles in mind? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Should ISBNs be included if a book was first published prior to the introduction of ISBNs in 1966? I'm particularly thinking about the Infobox which should usually refer to the first editions. --Thf1977 11:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First edition information is prefered, so if this is available then my view is no it shouldn't be included in the Infobox. However a release history section is specified for near the end of the article call "Release details" of example see. Master and Commander. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to link to this WP from the various novel stub categories... Stevage 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most of them have a reference to it, at least on the "Talk" page there should be a {t1|NovelsWikiProject}} notice on each one. If not there you could place one, are you interested in contributing to the project? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the novel stub templates are phrased something like this article on (insert novel stub name here) is a stub, please consider expanding and check out Wikiproject:Novels. Or something like that anyways; I know that is how I myself found the wikiproject. If you think it would be worthwhile to have a link in the heading if you feel like adding it. -- Gizzakk 02:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My husband and I are convinced that we saw a previous movie about The Da Vinci Code, possibly summer of 2004. We can't find any record of it, but we remember it very clearly. Any ideas out there?4.247.203.34 13:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

there have been numerous documentaries about the original "research", and a few about the subject once the novel came out one I was aware of has just been reshown on UK Channel 4 which is fronted by Tony Robinson of Black Adder and Time Team fame. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility is that what you and your husband saw was one of the movies that came out that could be considered Da Vinci Code-ish. Two that come to mind are National Treasure and Sahara. -- Gizzakk 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am having the same problem. I know I saw a movie dealing with the code and scenes in a Scottish Castle once inhabited by Knights templers. posted by User:166.44.21.52

I was just wondering if there is any precedent for renaming articles that are under their non-english names. This often comes up with novels that were written in different languages and then re-released in english, and I did not know if we were supposed to leave it or change it or what. -- Gizzakk 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Again no clear answer, I personally would say we should work to "English" it is an English wiki after all. In other words we should prefer English titles if the work is available in English. Exceptions would probably be, A) where the work in not available in English, B) where the work is "primarily" known by it's original language name. Hope that make sense to you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thats what I was asking and thanks once again. -- Gizzakk 11:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think an example of B will be Les Misérables. Loom91 12:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The original French name is used because the novel has always been known by that name in English, because English speakers can guess the meaning of the word, and because no precise English word of the same meaning exists. Modus Vivendi 09:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that although we have all these categories for stubs, hardly any of them are actually used and there are nearly 200 novels just categorised as novel-stubs. Consequently I am planning on going through each of these stubs one-by-one, dropping an infobox in and filling it in as far as data on the page allows, and categorising it where possible. If anyone thinks I can actually be doing something more useful along similar rote lines, please let me know! --JennyRad 11:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to add the novel categories while you are at it, and www.alibris.com and www.amazon.com are good for any info that is missing. and dont forget to add the NovelsWikiProject and Novelinfobox incomp templates to the talk page (unless you fill out the entire infobox.) And thanks for helping! -- Gizzakk 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not my area of specility, the wiki articles on both subject would probably help. Put simply I take, Horror to mean, having Horrific subject matter, particularly with supernatural themes. Gothics I take to be dark themed with character of the victorian period. Some stories / novels are both. I'm sure others will know different. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The first gothic novels date from the 1760s, so they're hardly victorian ;-) See f.ex. The Castle of Otranto --Thf1977 09:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

oops, but you know what I mean - "of the period". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Was wondering how to know when to remove the "stub" designation? PeregrineV 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When is a stub not a stub! Large issue, all rather subjective really, should be based on significance of the Novel, and probably the ammount of basic text written. Is there a "Plot introduction", "Plot summary", "Characters in xxxx", Full set of appropriate Categories, and is the article Wikified. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we generate a list of novels that have little to no representation on Wikipedia?

Mikesan230 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There is such a page, reachable from the right hand side navigation template, call Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticlesNeeded. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

i think someone should make a page with a list of novels that are not represented on wikipedia, for whatever reason. then if it was linked to other novel-related pages people could see the list and add whatever stuff they want about books they've read. it sounds obvious, but i dunno if anyone's done it yet Pxw324 13:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There is such a page, reachable from the right hand side navigation template, call Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticlesNeeded. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to start beefing up the characters in the Jane Austen novels and so created a Jane Austen Character template. This is my first one, so wasn't sure how I implement it?plange 04:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, although I would split out the caption in the manner of Template:Infobox Biography. It tends to look nicer in my view. Also I would make use of this one one article and ask if people approve before doing loads of work on them. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Two questions: 1) For translated novels, is it possible that the infobox can in any way be modified to contain a slot for original language publication date, and original language? If this is thought necessary, anyway. (I think it probably is.)

2) Covers: First edition covers... is this rigid? I see it's definitely better than slapping any old cover on an article, but, particularly with things such as ongoing series (see Ian Rankin and the Rebus novels), which often have similarly formatted covers, is it permissable to forgo the first ed. cover? Personally, I think the uniform look of the series of Rebus covers is much more pleasing as it is than if each entry was adorned with the first edition cover? To be frank, some old covers are pretty dire. Can there be exceptions for asesthetic reasons?! (Especially when an image of the first ed. cover can be placed somewhere else in the article?)

3) This also leads me onto the problem of UK v. USA editions... publishers, pages, differ across the oceans...which do we stick in the infobox? Is there some kind of uniform concensus on this (or do we list both? Or do we go for: If the book had US publication first, that's the data we use, and vice versa for UK publication?)

4) I've been filling in quite a few infoboxes lately, and coming across these issues (not to mention the completely insoluble problem of categorising the many subgenres of crime fiction...)... I don't want to make up my own rules as I go along if there's already accepted concensus on this (though if there isn't, I'll be perfectly happy to!) Barbara Osgood 18:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

whole number of questions here, ok one at a time. 1) This is an English language encyclopedia and the emphasis should be on that language. I would go with details on the original language edition but in the text of the article. The introductory paragraph and "Release details" section are useful for this for instance. 2) First edition is prefered, but I know what you mean, sometimes however the old covers are better and the latter examples of a series adopt a "worse" style and consistency produces a less pleasing result. No easy answer on this one, however I think consistency is important, but the first edition cover could well be include later in the article. 3) I think here the principle here is the "first" edition (earliest country) is the important one, other info is extra. Personally I try to collect the "original" and that heavily cited on the web. (usually 2 - no more than 3). 4) Crime novels, you might need to explain exactly what your problems are. We have a page for this type of debate, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Novel_categorization. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, have created an infobox for characters in Jane Austen novels. Let me know what you think and if I've left anything out and what my next steps should be. The template is Template:JAustenCharacter and I've created a Talk page on that template. Thank you! plange 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

anyone have any feedback? Here's an example in use Mr. Bennet -plange 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you get no more comment I would just go with it as you have it. I personally think it is fine. Gust put it on a few prominent characters and see if you then get any more comeback. E.G. headlining characters such as Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Question on Infobox's.

On The Amber Spyglass I removed Northern Lights from the infobox Preceded by section just leaving The Subtle Knife, but another editor put it back in noting that it also preceeds The Amber Spyglass.

What's the standard procedure on this? I've already made a comment on the Talk:The Amber Spyglass.Grey Shadow 09:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, do you know the nature of the challenge here. Sorry wind back, there should be "one" title preceeding and "one" title following. Having said that the basis of the before and after can be a cause for dispute. Normally where authors write descreet books the sequence would be order of publication (or in some cases writing). However many author write "series" of books where the plot follows a particular timeline. This is the normal sequence for these types of novels. In other words plot chronological. There should not be 2 preceeding novels. Does that help! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the novels in question. It's listed as a Trilogy on the page.Grey Shadow 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the publication dates, generally these will indicate which order a novel comes in the series, unless it is noted as a prequel; whichever novel immediately precedes the novel in question should be included in the infobox, and the other should be included in the same area in the infobox of the "in-between" novel. hope that wasnt too confusing. -- Gizzakk 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Having said all this the particular novel sequence appears sorted now anyway. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth adding [Category:Young adult novels] to [Category:Novels by genre]? Grey Shadow 12:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What do others think - I would have said that this is "by age group" rather than "by genre" :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Young adult isn't a genre. It's an age group. Young adult could be science fiction, horror, romance, mystery, fantasy, anything, really...I wouldn't use that as the genre...no way.

Don't. Young adult is just a cheap marketing trick, not a literary genre. Loom91 06:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that young adult novels is not a literary genre, but as it defines a good number of novels it should be included somewhere. The spot on the Category:Novels page seems fine to me. -- Gizzakk 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just added a novel (Fame, Glory, and Other Things on My To Do List) that I couldn't find a category for...I'm thinking maybe "High School" would be the category, or even "Comedy"...I really can't decide...it's not really a romance. There are so many books out there that are simply about high schoolers that it almost ought to be its own category. Bob 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what you are talking about would be called a coming of age novel, which is basically a novel about the life of a teenager, usually involving some sort of profound revelation or life lesson. Stuff like Shilo and The Red Badge of Courage comes to mind. I looked and they actually have a Coming-of-age films category. -- Gizzakk 17:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Gizzakk's point is excellent with respect to a lot of novels of this kind (obvious examples to my mind being most of Judy Blume's or Paula Danziger's) but it strikes me that it doesn't cover quite a few other novels like the Sweet Valley High or for that matter Chalet School books which don't have the "revelation" or "life lesson" element and so, to my mind, hardly qualify as Coming-of-Age. Possibly there should be two categories (possibly with some overlap): Coming-of-Age and High School? --JennyRad 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe we should have coming-of-age and buy-this-crap-because-we-know-what-it-is-to-be-a-teenager-so-you-should-spend-

all-your-minimum-wage-job-money-buying-all-60-books-in-the-series-only-to-find- out-that-yes-,-the-cute-girl-DOES-end-up-prom-queen-and-falls-in-love-with-the- studly-football-captain. I'm joking of course, but it is a good question. For some reason calling it a "High School" novel doesnt seem right to me. Perhaps someone should consult a professor of modern literature or some such expert and find out if there actually is a genre for this sort of thing. if we are going to call it a high school novel, it should at least be a subcategory of young adult novel. On that point, If we are going to have a category:coming-of-age novels, where would it fit in; under genre, young adult novels, or what? -- Gizzakk 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

sniggers Yes, perhaps. :) At any rate, if Coming-of-Age novels were categorised as such I would say they should be a genre of their own - no need for Young Adult novels to have their own category (unless other ages have, anyway). Note that Amazon categorises both the Chalet School and the Sweet Valley High books as Children's, with the sub-genre School - there are worse things to copy than their categorisation, I should think. Except that I really wouldn't call them Children's books, particularly not the Sweet Valley ones - I definitely think of them as Adolescent. But perhaps Adolescent is a sub-category of Child.

P.S. I broke up your category-name, Gizzakk, 'cos it was breaking the formatting. Hope you don't mind! --JennyRad 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is that there are three basic categories age-wise; childrens (0-10 or so), young adult (11-whenever), and adult (everything else.) The problem with that is when exactly does "whenever" end; and for that matter what any sort of qualifications for this would be; I don't believe we could go and ask every author with a novel in question whether or not they had written it with 10 to 15 year-olds in mind. I think we are getting a little off track, but at the moment it seems like we should stick with the young adult category and possibly the coming-of-age subcategory later if the first gets too unwieldy; with other subdivisions if it stil gets too big; which looking at it now does not seem all that likely for a while yet.

P.S.-No problem, JennyRad -- Gizzakk 13:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually sometimes read books my daughter has, so may do an article on them Would the Library of Congress designation be useful? PeregrineV 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe of value to some, something to put on the "Release details" section I think. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there ought to be category for foreign editions -- maybe just the languages, or maybe more than 1 line: one for languages, another for titles. unless someone like John Irving who's translated into 50 languages makes this too unwieldy. Just a suggestion to mull over. Hayford Peirce 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for joining the project, I notice you are somewhat of a veteran Wikipedian. Anyway, back to the subject. I'm not sure where you were thinking of this but this is unlikely to be a subject for the "Infobox Book" template at this is already very full and also the focus there is the "English" version of the novel., but with references to source language if in translation from a foriegn original. Their is obviosuly rom in the general text of any article to include this type of information; however one other section comes to mind. In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate there is provision for a "Release details" section which is best illustrated by and example (Master and Commander#Release details which although is doesn't currently include foreign translations, it could. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay...I want to post my comments on a book...is there an appropriate place (in the article in a separate header, perhaps?) to post comments? If not, can we start doing that? Bob 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean your personal review of it? I think that isn't part of WP's purpose (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you mean something else, personal views are not to be included in Wikipedia (although that is difficult to achieve) both for personal input and policing the input of others. THE place to this type of thing is the Userspace (i.e. your own) and even then there are legal and ethical limitations. I imainge a limited amount of opinion could go on the talk pages of an article but only the mildest of forms. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain a second...I believe that since we are doing an all-around profile of the books, we should also include reviews...they really can say more sometimes than the facts, whether it was enjoyable or not, or some sort of 4 or 5 star rating system or something. Bob 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but we are not allowed to include personal comments or reviews. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. What we can do is search out some reputable literary review, printed book, web based, journal, newspaper, radio, TV etc. and "quote" from those. We must give verifiable references to each one we use. (see WP:CITET) This is highly recommended. It is just that most either don't get round to this or baulk at the amount of work envolved. e.g. the one I put in at Master and Commander#Literary significance & criticism this is referenced as well. Does that help. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Darn it...thanks for the quick answer, even though it wasn't what I wanted to hear... Bob 14:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional universes. I know the article is a little ungainly, but surely it has its place here. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, the discussion regarding this AFD has been closed with a ruling of "no consensus" which means the article is safe for the time being but is subject to being renominated the next time someone who objects to it notices it. 23skidoo 02:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, over the last week or so I've created individual articles (with infoboxes, of course) on the complete Simon Templar (aka The Saint) and Modesty Blaise series of books (yeah I don't really have a life...). Given the wide fanbase for the two characters, I feel the books are of wide enough interest to warrant individual articles. Most of the articles are, at the moment, rather stubby since I don't know enough about the books to type of synopses and all that (though I have read the complete Modesty Blaise series I need to re-read them again; and I only recently started reading The Saint series in order). All are tagged as being part of the Wikiproject, so anyone who is familiar with these two series of books, I invite to come over and add your knowledge. Both character links, above, include lists of the series. In the case of Simon Templar, a number of books (particularly later ones) are also missing cover images. 23skidoo 02:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've come across Category:1990 mystery novels. Are we going to do more of these subcategories, or should it be merged into 1990 novels? There is only one novel in it at present. Grey Shadow 09:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this. This one came from the ether! No proposal I know of to add this sub-division. Nominated for category deletion. May need to come back later but at this stage proabably not. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This first one is proposed here Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 14. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I found another one at Category:1965 mystery novels Grey Shadow 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed its deletion also at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_21. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard size for cover images, or at least a preferred size? PeregrineV 22:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, just a prefered size, this one appears to work well though, but stretching can be an issue with images. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

200 px seems to work well. Too much smaller and it's hard to read smaller text without having to click it. I've uploaded about 70 book images over the last 2 weeks and I've been going with 200px. I was under the understanding that 200px is also the set size for the infobox, too. 23skidoo 03:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So I just save the image after setting it to 200 px? PeregrineV 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And when referencing the image in the image parameter do [[Image:example.jpg|200px|Some tooltip text]] :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend doing that rather than trying to save an image at 200px. That's a bit hit-and-miss and sometimes I find the image quality suffers a bit. I usually save the images a bit larger than that (still within fair use low-res parameters) so if someone clicks on the image they can see a bit more detail. See, for example, the image I have at Boodle (The Saint) (one of my favorites because it's a cool old pulp fiction cover from the 1940s). BTW for some reason I just noticed the example I gave is showing as a high-res image, however I specifically scanned it as low-res...weird. 23skidoo 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When uploading a novel cover, is their a fair use low res size that's allowed? I've come across covers ranging in size from

the large to the small .

What is allowed? I've made them both 200px as per the infobox norm. Grey Shadow 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I can find nothing the says more than High resolution is discouraged. However I personally say that a very low res image such as on the right stretched is really "unfair" use. But that is a different meaning of "Fair". 200px seems about the right size visually for cover art in the infobox. Generally smaller 150px would appear about right for other images throughout the article (even other edition covers). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If the image is too high resolution, it will be tagged with {{Fairusereduce}}. Also check the third Fair use policy: Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images. -- ReyBrujo 18:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I see this is the first time that I've come on to the forum. I've been really busy lately. Anyway, there is a novel article that I think should come under project attention. The End of the Affair by Graham Greene. I think the article should be about the novel, and go into detail. There should be links for the film versions. Contact me at my user page for further questions and advice. Au Revoir Afghan Historian 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In great need of our help this article, I have added it to the General Novels section of our worklist. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Worklist. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(Please let me know if this is a /GeneralForum topic). I understand that their are 2 lists for novels needing infoboxes, one autogenerated and one manually generated. However, it seems the autogenerated list is only for Mystery novels. Was wondering why this is, can it be changed, and if so, how? If I understand this correctly,

• this list needs to be manually updated - Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/InfoboxNeeded
• and this one is auto generated Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/NovelsWithoutInfobox.

Mostly trying for understanding here, as I do a lot of clicking in confusion until I find what I think is the right list. Thanks PeregrineV 03:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is a GeneralForum topic. this location is just for discussion of the main project page itself. Having said that. You have the understanding correct. If you want to change the category for the auto list you need to get some agreement with others working on the list and then the new category can be submitted to the generator. Alternatively you can help us work through the current list and we can discuss the category when we have got through what we are currently working on, "many hands" etc. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been some discussion over what goes here, what the definition is, etc. etc. and no consensus. I move we merge its contents back into Category:Series of books; defining the order in which a series of books should be read is more workable in a list format anyway, not a category. Please comment on the talk page or at Cfm. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Have we missunderstood the category here, this would be for articles on the sequences. So the article are likely to contain the list of what makes up the series / sequence. No individual novel articles should appear here in this catagory. No I don't think the catgeory should be merged. I might support a rename to "Novel series" if others thought this necessary. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the category is full of individual novel articles. If it should be full of lists, or articles about novel series, then would someone please revise the description for it? (Kevin?) I'll be happy to help move the articles once it's clear what the category's for. Thanks. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have responded here as I think, having been nominated this is where the main debate will be taking place. I can see you are trying to tidy this. And it does need it! If we need to do plenty of sorting work you know you can count on me to do the grunt work!. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the proposal as Category:Novel sequences to Category:Novel series on the Cfr. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Great job, I can support that. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding novel sequences or series, I have a question. There are probably a huge number of novels in series (I'm thinking primarily detective/mystery fiction here) which may or may not individually merit individual pages but certainly merit at least one page on the series itself. I am myself a particular fan of Carole Nelson Douglas' "Midnight Louie" mystery books, and I note that neither she nor the series have any discussion here yet. I intend to correct that, but am curious how the rest of you think that a page discussing a series of novels, like hers, should be constructed. And I know that this may have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't found that discussion yet. Also, on a side point, how if at all should the plots of movie or television tie-in books be discussed in wikipedia? I remember one of the novels about The Man from U.N.C.L.E., I believe by David McDaniel, was probably the only place to have told how T.H.R.U.S.H. was supposed to have developed from Professor Moriarty's organization. Should that be mentioned in the Man from U.N.C.L.E. article or not? I welcome any responses here. Badbilltucker 13:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a Fiction sequence WikiProject but it appears dormant. So we can respond here I think. All I can really suggest is that the focus should be on the series as a whole rather than being a collection of information on the individual novels. Also a personal view but any spoiler style information should ideally be kep to the individual articles trying to keep the series article spoiler free. What I find sometimes happens is that once there is sufficient material in a series article the individual article can grow from outtakes from the series. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Great questions all. I'm with Kevin on the series article; an overview of the series with links to individual title articles sounds appropriate. As for film & tv tie-ins, as someone who's knee-deep in that project, please keep written and filmed versions in separate articles, with a link and maybe a brief reference in the main series or novel article. I would definitely put the T.H.R.U.S.H. tidbit into the MFU article (with a spoiler warning of course); that's a great bit of trivia. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)