Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

I was going to post at Literature, but it doesn't seem like that's active. There's an article for a short story up for deletion and a quick search shows that there does appear to be coverage, but it's all in Spanish. Can someone who is fluent enough help look for coverage and if anything is usable, add it to the article? I'm going to keep searching, but I thought it would be better to get someone else to help as well. The article in question is La muñeca menor. I'm going to post at WP:Puerto Rico as well. I don't know if it's ultimately a notable short story, but I figure that it'd be better to give it more of a fighting chance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Jane Austen, Portal:Harry Potter & Portal:Narnia have been nominated for deletion as part of a bundled nomination under the title: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Was wondering if someone from this WikiProject could take a look at this and assess it per WP:NBOOK. It's completely unsourced and doesn't ever appear to have had citations ever added to it since it was created back in 2009. If not notable in it's own right, perhaps the content about the book can be incorporated into Leslie Marmon Silko. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The list of sources discussing the book is rather long, and is part of the article. What the article lacks is any inline citations to those articles, that in my mind establish the notability of the book. I think the task is reading those sources and quoting from them in a Reviews section for the article. More than one editor thinks it is enough to list sources, rather than to use them, quote from them, and write a Reviews section, or perhaps Themes as well. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place that members of this project may be interested in:

Talk:And Then There Were None § RfC: And Then There Were None and racial language

Any input would be appreciated. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy about Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED is questioned by one editor. The book's original title and first edition cover were Ten Little Niggers. From the start, the novel was published under the title And Then There Were None in the US, which is the title of the article. It is a top selling novel, estimated to have sold 100 million copies since publication. Many editors seeing the article remove the term, everywhere or in a few places, as the term is unacceptable in the US and the UK now, but the history of the novel and its various titles as views on that word have changed since original publication in 1939 is told in the article, which requires using the word. I think the debate has happened many times. Is Wikipedia still not censored, to tell the story of the popular novel and its interesting history? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi

There is currently discussion around my deboldening of a character list. Talk:Great_Expectations#Bold_for_character_names

The real issue seems to be that when characters are NOT introduced in the plot, a list inevitable follows.

Some characters get a sentence, some get a paragraph, so it falls between list and prose, and neither is in the plot.

Can someone look at perhaps introducing new style advice in the MOS:Novels?

I am being told that I will not be allowed to remove the boldening, as per MOS:BOLDFACE, unless I (nothing to do with the article per se) go and change all the other Great Expectations pages.*

Obviously if there are many pages that are against MOS, I cannot in good faith start going in there and changing them just because there are style issues creeping into Novels pages.

Is there any way for someone to clarify the MOS:Novels interpretation, and how it should be ignored/adhered to? Chaosdruid (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• I presume that you mean all articles on the novels of Charles Dickens. Rwood128 (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hans Adler made clear suggestions on how to deal with this. The commentary is here. The steps to be taken are mainly by those who wrote portions of the MOS that do not provide guidance on the topic of a character list in an article about a novel, especially a novel by Charles Dickens, an author who creates a large number of memorable characters in each novel he writes. I think we should start from the advice already given. It was not directed to Novels, but Bullet lists and use of bold text in an article. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the novels of Walter Scott should be included here, where, in the lists of characters, major character are in bold? Rwood128 (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have made the following proposal on Manual of Style/Novels, in attempt to resolve this matter. Rwood128 (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a requested move at Talk:The Culture (series) that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  09:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Harry Potter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harry Potter (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The article The Christy Miller series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, article is just an introduction and list of titles

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AutumnKing (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The InternetArchiveBot added bluelinks to several inline citations in the article about Persuasion by Jane Austen, here. I looked at the first one, the page number cited includes words from Claire Tomalin that back up the sentence in the article. Now what? Do I undo the blue link? Do I add the link as a url for the source? This is new to me, bluelinking a page number in a formatted citation. The bot adds a link to the source cited in an online version with page images, right to the page cited, and turns the page number blue, hence blue linking. Any help is appreciated. These blue links have appeared in other articles I follow. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new to editing on here - been at it a few weeks. Some of the contributions I've made so far is creating pages for The Curfew and Samedi the Deafness by Jesse Ball, Mr. Fox by Helen Oyeyemi, the story collections Mouthful of Birds and Things We Lost in the Fire, created a page for the author Helen Phillips, and adding Critical Review sections to CivilWarLand In Bad Decline, Crash, The Last Samurai and Lightning Rods (Helen DeWitt), The Intuitonist, and the legacy sections for Andrei Platonov and The Man Without Qualities, etc. The purpose of me listing this is just to show that I'm not some barely-active newbie; that I'm here with genuine passion for the Novel section.

So now my questions: how do I officially join Project Novels? And where is the best spot for general chatting about editing and contribution ideas? I'm looking for a bit more camaraderie, so far I feel like I've been editing in a bubble outside of a couple users I've interacted with in passing. Interested in finding more people with a common interest in expanding the Novel section that I can chat editing project ideas with. Hope to hear from some of you. Best, ANDROMITUS (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome! You're automatically a member of this Project just by participating, but you can also add your username here. This is page is a great place to discuss potential articles, but when discussing specific improvements you want to make in a specific article, it is best to start a discussion on that article's talk page, and perhaps adding a notice here to alert editors who may be interested. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 18:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for participants for a possible new wikiproject H. P. Lovecraft, to tag and improve articles relating to the horror writer.--Auric talk 09:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments are invited at Talk:Police procedural#Merger proposal. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Millie (short story) (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Important author, Katherine Mansfield, particularly of short stories. Lots of sources at Google books. Referencing needs improvement. Only pretended compliance with WP:Before. Nominator says this is "a test case." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Novels since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Hatnote for Isaac Asimov's pseudonym and comment there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey all. There is currently a deletion debate ongoing about Brewer (John Updike), the setting of John Updike's "Rabbit" cycle of novels. Any input at the AFD would be welcome, as would any contributions anyone might have from reliable sources discussing this topic outside of a plot summary. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 13:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a deletion/merge discussion that might be of interest to members of this Wikiproject here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fellowship of the Ring.--MattMauler (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is now happening here: Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Proposed merge of The Fellowship of the Ring etc into The Lord of the Rings – WanderingWanda (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The AfD suggesting merge/delete and redirect has closed, and another discussion about merging all three LotR volumes' articles into The Lord of the Rings has now opened at Talk:The Lord of the Rings#Proposed merge of The Fellowship of the Ring etc into The Lord of the Rings, as of February 4.

This likely has implications for our handling of other multi-volume works of fiction.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I made a new discussion in WT:Notability (fiction) regarding adding more restrictions on lists regarding fictional elements such as swords, animals, profession, and so on. if anyone is interested in bringing their opinion on the topic. here.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I've done some work on an article about a novel called 2023: A Trilogy by the artists most widely known as The KLF. The novel appears to be heavily inspired by The Illuminatus! Trilogy.

The article is in the domain of both WikiProject The KLF and WikiProject Novels. As the currently sole active member of the former, I've done what I can on the KLF side of things, but the article could do with some help on the book side of things - which is really rather important as the article is about the novel :) If anybody would like to flesh it out I'd really appreciate it. I've left a note about what I've done, what I feel needs to be done (but you're the experts), and some possible sources, on the talk page.

Additionally, if there's anybody in the UK who is interested in finishing this article but feels they need to own a copy of the book first, I am willing to donate a copy to them with 2 conditions (and 1 disclaimer). 1) You'll have to promise to write about the book even if it's terrible, 2) The offer only stands while the book remains available on Amazon for under £7 ;). The disclaimer is that of course to facilitate this I would need an address. I hope that as an editor and admin in good standing (?) trust can be presumed but if not you'll have to buy or borrow your own copy! :)

I'm not expecting any takers, with or without a free book thrown in, but as the old adage goes, "if you don't ask, you don't get". If anybody wishes to communicate with me about this, please be sure to ping me as I'm not much of a watchlist-watcher. Don't bother pinging me with "no", that is taken for granted.

Please move this thread to the relevant WikiProject talk page if I've posted in the wrong place. Thank you. --kingboyk (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingboyk The simplest thing the article could use is a plot summary. As you have read the book, perhaps you can write one. There is no need to supress the ending. Tell the whole story, in brief. The challenge, besides being brief, is writing it in everyday language, so anyone who lights on the article can understand what you are saying. The Wikipedia phrase for this is avoiding "in-universe" style, that is, so much in the universe of the book that the uninitiated cannot follow what is written. You seem to be clear in your writing style, given the sample here. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: That's the thing, I haven't read the book yet :) I've ordered a copy which has just arrived. (I discovered today that I'd also bought a copy back in 2017 and hadn't got round to reading it! Oh well, that's either one pristine copy for the bookcase and one to read, or a Christmas present sorted :))

I'll do as you suggest if nobody beats me to it, but it won't be imminent as I have some more pressing work to do both on and off wiki, including (on wiki) completing some work on an FA which was in danger of being deleted.

Thanks for the reply and for the tips about how to write the plot section, which I shall certainly refer to if it ends up being me that writes it. --kingboyk (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a tag or something? See Death on the Nile talk page under "Is this supposed to be about the book or the film?". A lot of the plot information is coming from the film, rather than the novel and they are two very different stories. I pointed out the first glaring mistake but there are others. Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with the novel (hence the reason I was looking it up to begin with) to make the corrections. I just remembered for certain about the rock business. Is there a tag that can warn readers that this may contain inaccuracies from confusion of the book and film or even series? What about when there are many other versions such as a the television series and an upcoming new film? How do we fix this? Any advice at all? Please ping me, with suggestions. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 17:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@MagnoliaSouthThe plot section of the article you link to should clearly be about the novel only. You are right to remove info from the plot summary if it is from the film (The film even has its own article!). The other adaptations listed farther down in the article are likewise irrelevant for the plot section of the article. I don't know of a tag, though one might exist--However, I think a warning tag would make situation more confusing without distinguishing which elements are from which. The best approach would be to get ahold of the book (or someone who knows the book well) and correct the inaccuracies as soon as you can. There's no deadline, so I'd say make it a priority BUT just know that some inaccuracies might stay for a limited time.--MattMauler (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) MagnoliaSouth, The plot section on that page is about the novel, and only the novel. There are been various films, which have their own articles: see Death on the Nile (disambiguation). It's quite common unfortunately for editors who have never read the novel to 'correct' the plot to include elements found only in a film or TV version. Such edits are wrong and should be fixed or reverted. Not sure if there's a specific tag for this, but ultimately someone who knows the book will need to deal with it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added an 'Expert Needed" tag which may or may not get someone's attention. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Magnoliasouth you can add the article to your watchlist, and reject edits to the plot summary that are not from the novel. It is the easiest way to keep the plot summary straight. It has been a while since I read that novel. How do you know that some of the television show's plot did not match the novel? --Prairieplant (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to you all! @MattMauler @MichaelMaggs I think what I'll do is just read the book myself and re-watch both the film and the Poirot series episode as well and make notes. This way I can sort it all out. It'll have to be as time allows, since I am busy with other matters but it'll be fun researching it anyway. Excellent tag though, Michael. It's exactly what it needed. @Prairieplant I know because I've seen the film, the TV episode and read the book. The problem is that it's been a while since I've seen or read any of it. I'm rusty, is all. I own all of them though and can begin working on it. It may be months before I'm finished but I'll do my best. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 04:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've suggested on the talk page of Wuthering Heights that the plot summary is excessively long and should be cut down. Further eyes would be welcome. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

While the problem with plot has been fixed the discussion of themes and techniques is still substandard for such a major work. Rwood128 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There is disagreement on the Talk page of Crome Yellow over whether a minor character there is meant to portray Herbert Asquith. If those familiar with the novel know of reliable sources for this belief, would they please mention them there? Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure I'd justify calling this "a disagreement". More, I'm afraid, a case of an editor who was unaware of this reacting with hostility and then coming up with a predictable litany of reasons why it supposedly shouldn't be posted, despite having been directed to no less than three reputable books which mention the matter. He was known as "H H Asquith", by the way - calling him "Herbert" is a common error, but an error nonetheless.Paulturtle (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Our thanks to Oulfis for resolving the issue in an uncontroversial manner. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN] has a crazy backlog, including 1200 books [1] some of which have ben waiting almost 12 years. There is also a short backlog of 41 at fiction: [2]. Please help us get these backlogs down, we'd be extremely grateful! Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this! After consulting the list, I added sources to Arrival (novel), and the backlog has been added to my to do.--MattMauler (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The file File:Tom Brown's School Days (1940 film).jpg was relisted once and is currently nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion, where I invite you for input. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The article/page about The Island of Doctor Moreau is incomplete in my opinion. First of all, the layout of the article is poor as the historical context is followed by a long list of related works. Second, the reception section is empty. Third, many of the comments/statements made in the article have no citations/references. My primary concern is to move the long list of related works into a new article for reader comprehensibility. I would like to request help with making this article better. Thanks for reading about my concerns. Leiwang7 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

To me what that entry needs most are references, from which one would then most likely be able to fill some empty sections. The related works can’t really be forked off a new entry until you have enough sources to establish it as a notable topic on its own, so sources have to be the first order of business. Hope that helps! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the layout is fine the way it is today (I see you rearranged it already), and the empty Reviews section is the glaring need. Without citations to reviews discussing the critiques and evaluations of the novel when it was published and since that time, notability has not been established. The plot summary does not need citations, nor does the list of characters. Adaptations of the novel to films or stage plays are not sufficient to show notability of the novel. I think it may take a serious search to find reviews that are about the novel, and not about a movie adaptation. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I have recently edited the article the Chronicles of Barsetshire as part of a University project. I understand you guys must have massive amounts of articles to get through, but would really appreciate it if you could take a look a my article. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and since this is my first ever article, some advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Ben BjL1504 (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good on first reading, as to British style for English, organization of the article, and sufficient secondary sources for notability. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Long shot because it’s only just now out in print but has anyone read/listened to A Certain Hunger and might be able to help with the plot? Inspired by great reviews, I started an entry and it seems ripe (ha ha) for DYK but I haven’t gotten to read it yet and don’t want to send to Main Page with a thin plot section. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Vince Flynn novel Transfer of Power needs serious expansion, including the plot summary, critical reception and such. Someone needs to work on expanding it. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, have you read it? If yes your additions to the plot section would be very welcome and not require any further research on your part. Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The article The Tent (Paulsen novel) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey everyone!

I've thrown myself headlong into updating The Turn of the Screw. It was in sore need of it for such an important story. I've completely rewritten Reception (renamed from Literary significance and criticism), added The Turn of the Screw#Background, and written the lead a bit. I've familiarised myself with the WikiProject Novels MOS, so in addition to my changes to the article, I've also moved things around a little to suit the MOS. My next goal is to improve the section on Publication (there's a lot of important information missing about his preface to the New York Edition).

I brought up the Odyssey to GA a few months ago, but I've still only been editing for a few months, so I'd appreciate any input or suggestions! I tend to be be a fast editor, when I can. Feel free to ping me here, or post on the article's talk page. There's definitely some things that need expansion on. I could fill up Reception for days, but I've no idea when to draw the line. ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Do nominate an interesting fact from the article for DYK if the GA nomination succeeds! Great work! Ciridae (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ciridae: Absolutely! God knows what, though. Maybe that James dictated it to his secretary? ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

At the top of the article about the article on David Copperfield by Charles Dickens, edit page, the template in curly brackets says EngvarB|date= . I just looked up the Wikipedia articles about this template and do not find that style at all, rather the phrase British English inside the curly brackets and no date. I needed to explain the variations in English spelling and style to an editor of a novel by Jane Austen who deleted the British spellings and added American spellings, making work for other editors. I looked at a few articles that I know use British style and spelling, and they all have the notice in the same fashion as the article about the Austen novel. When articles are edited, I have noticed editors updating the date field to the current month. The templates listed at Template:British English do not use the parameter date= and are not shortened as the template I find often. Instead, the two words are spelled out, and no place for the date. Aha, I found this article template:EngvarB, which includes the date parameter. Which template is either correct or preferred?

Is this a change in template format that I have completely missed? Should I be changing the text of templates on articles about books by British authors or about the authors themselves? - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Novel Explosives and assessing it per WP:NBOOK? I'm not seeing anything in the article which indicates this book is notable enough for a stand-alone article, and the author doesn't seem to have an article about him so a WP:REDIRECT is probably out of the question. For reference, the article was created directly in the mainspace back in 2018 and it's talk page has yet to be created; so, it seems this never has been assessed by anyone other than the creator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Took a look, Marchjuly. It’s definitely thin but it’s also far from the most egregious I’ve seen. KCRW, The Millions (although mainly an interview), Numero Cinq—these notices aren’t nothing. Kirkus I would usually discount but a starred review is something. You could probably push through an AfD to deletion, especially depending on who else !votes, but for me, not worth the trouble. Sorry I don’t have a firmer answer for you! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Innisfree987. I wasn't necessarily looking to get the article deleted; just wanted to see what others thought since it hadn't been assessed yet, and hasn't been edited by anyone other than the creator since it was created back in 2018. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Nancy Drew for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, everyone! Two days ago, I pushed a full rewrite of Dracula to mainspace. It was, in my view, pretty bad previously. I'm here to do something similar for what I did when I updated The Turn of the Screw and solicit feedback. I'll be taking the article to GA, and then probably FAC not too long after that. If you think something sounds wrong, you can let me know (or fix it yourself, if you like!); if anything is confusing, just give me a ping here, on the Talk, or on my user talk. The article isn't finished yet, though. If you have a look at Talk:Dracula, you can see the list of changes I mean to make in the near-future. If there's any questions you have, or comments, or anything at all, I'd be really open to hearing it. Open to all suggestions and I promise I'm very friendly. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Wikipedians! Today I noticed that there no references to support Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1950s. That is also the case for the lists for all years prior to 2006. In a normal Wikipedia article, there would be an inline citation to a references section citing specific sources for this list, to which one could go to verify accuracy. I'm not questioning the accuracy of the article, just the reason for deviating from Wikipedia policy. Is this perhaps an area for improvement? I'd be glad to help, but would like some background on this before I begin. As a compulsive reader of book reviews, I have followed the weekly bestseller lists for decades. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello BuzzWeiser196, good catch. It looks like the information on that page has gone basically unchanged since the first version in 2006, when wikipedia norms for sourcing were not so stringent. My own guess is that someone had access to a source of some kind which they used but did not cite, and nobody in the intervening years has taken the time to do further research. I often see articles like that, especially when the sourcing is in print rather than online. It would certainly be an improvement for verifiable sourcing to be added. Poking around, I wonder if 70 Years of Best Sellers, 1895-1965 by Alice Payne Hackett might be a more convenient source than locating each year's article individually. I'm not sure what the most elegant way to actually link the references would be, but maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists would have useful advice. I'm not very familiar with bestseller lists but it looks like this is an area where there is a lot of good work to be done! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 22:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @User:Oulfis. I'll put this on my list of things to do. The Hackett book looks promising. Used copies readily available at reasonable prices. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This sourece here has the best seller for years 1900 to 1998, just the number one for the year, not the top ten. This source here has the list of the top ten from Publishers Weekly for 1900 to 2005. This third source here lists the fiction and nonfiction best sellers and book of the month club offerings.

Publishers Weekly website has an Archive page, which does not seem to show the results of one year, but of one week, from 1991 to 2012. The books, once the date is selected, come out in an apparently random order, here. The front page of the bestseller list seems to be for the current week, and has a list for every genre here. I think it might be necessary to subscribe to PW to see any further into their archive.

Is any one of these an acceptable source for Wikipedia? --Prairieplant (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Prairieplant: Great work! Thank you. The Krueger Books website (http://www.kruegerbooks.com/books/best-sellers) you found may be the source of the Wikipedia lists. Krueger Books states here that their source was Publishers Weekly (PW). I picked a random year, 1953, and both Wikipedia and Krueger list the same books in the same order. My thoughts: We could re-characterize the Wikipedia lists as something like "As compiled by KruegerBooks.com" and link to their site. I notice that Krueger claims a copyright on the pages that contain these lists (and much other material on their website). That raises the issue of whether the Wikipedia lists violate Krueger's copyright. Before we decide to use Krueger as our reference, I think we should escalate that issue to some higher Wikipedia authority for resolution. Someone could get a one-month subscription to PW ($15) and do some cross-checking to determine if the Wikipedia lists are exactly as listed by PW. That sounds like the beginning of an exhaustive research project. I welcome any thoughts on the above. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:Oulfis and @User:Prairieplant: mystery solved. I checked the lists in the Hackett book for the decade of the 1950s against those cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1950s.. They are identical. The intro to Hackett's book states that her source was Publishers Weekly. So I have added this inline citation^[1] to the Wiki article. We should be able to do the same thing for other decades, if the lists are identical. I'll put this on my list of things to do. As I was reviewing the list for the 1950s, I was struck by how many of them I've read. I was able to do that because my father was a voracious reader and had box after box of books from that era. Regards, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Great find! That in-line reference looks good to me. A huge improvement in verifiability! Hackett strikes me as a really great, authoritative source since she was I believe the editor for PW at the time. Thank you for all your research here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh-- I'm sure you have plenty of editing ahead of you in verifying decades of bestseller lists, but I noticed several of the bestsellers are redlinks. Per WP:NBOOK, a reputable bestseller list like this one counts as one of the two sources of coverage for a book's notability. If there are any you have fond memories of, or always meant to read, if you can find just one book review you could add their articles! It might take some digging to find such old reviews, but many libraries give access to newspaper and magazine archives that probably hold them. As bestsellers, the reviews are surely out there! If you still have any of the books themselves, I bet the covers will even have quotes from reviewers to let you know where to look... And you might enjoy (re)reading to write the plot summaries. There's nothing quite like a parent's enormous collection to give you the reading bug. My dad had shelves and shelves of 70s sci fi and I read it all as a kid. Even when they told me to play outside, I'd sneak a book with me and climb a tree to read in it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:LEvalyn, I would be happy to do what you suggest above. I subscribe to the New York Times Book Review (been reading it for decades) and Newspapers.com. Both should be good sources for book reviews, and should enable citations for verifiability. Regards, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby is currently the subject of an ongoing featured article review. Surprisingly, very few people thus far have contributed evaluations of the article. As any Wikipedia editor can participate in a review of a FAC nomination, it would be appreciated if any willing editors would contribute an objective evaluation of the article. → Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Great_Gatsby/archive2 — Flask (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: This FAC review for The Great Gatsby is still ongoing if anyone else wishes to participate. — Flask (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue discussed herein potentially affects:

• Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1890s
• Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1900s
• Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1910s

As mentioned in an earlier post on this talk page, I've been adding inline citations to the series of articles "List of bestsellers in the US in...(year)" to identify the source. In most cases, the source is what I've called the Hackett book.^[2]. The Hacket book identifies The Bookman as the source for 1895 - 1912. But the titles of the related Wikipedia articles for that period imply that Publishers Weekly is the sole source. That's not accurate, as far as I can tell. It seems to me that the simplest solution is just to remove PW from the titles of those articles, call them "List of bestselling novels in the United States in the (decade)" and let our reflist explain the sources. If other editors involved in this project agree, we'll need to figure out how to launch Wikipedia's process for changing the titles. Thoughts? Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it’s important / relevant to have the specific list source in the title, so I’d support renaming these to “Bookman list of bestselling novels” Even though it looks like Bookman was the *only* organization publishing bestseller lists at that time, I think there is value in specifying who made the list. I think the renaming process is not too bad, a matter of requesting a “move”— I’d be able to start that process in a few days. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:LEvalyn, I agree with the approach you've suggested. We need to think about how to handle The 1910s article since it contains material from both publications. One approach would be to title it The Bookman/Publishers Weekly list of bestselling novels in the United States in the 1910s" BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

BuzzWeiser196: Ok, I went ahead and moved the first two! It was easier than I expected it to be, the instructions are here.

Good catch about the 1910s. Looking more closely, it seems the two lists actually overlapped a bit -- Bookman went until 1918, and PW started in 1912. Perhaps there should be two articles, "Bookman list of the 1910s" and "Publishers Weekly list of the 1910s"? The other option, I think, would be "Bookman and Publishers Weekly lists of the 1910s", and for 1912-1918, specify any differences between the two lists. Merging them like that feels like it's doing more 'original research', and certainly for a modern list we wouldn't put, e.g., Booklist and NYT bestsellers in one article, but especially if the two lists agree with each other merging them might be more useful to readers. Still, I think I lean toward having two articles which link to each other, since each magazine covers 8 of the 10 years. What do you like better? Thanks by the way for working on these-- it's exciting to see these improvements in accuracy! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:LEvalyn, I'm open to two separate articles for the 1910s if we have a reliable source The Bookman for each year in 1912 - 1918. The Hackett book doesn't give us that information. In fact, this brings to light an issue I've been trying to ignore: it's not clear in what year Hackett switched from Bookman to Publishers. To quote her: "The 1895-1912 lists in this book are from The Bookman. From 1912-1975 they are from Publishers Weekly." That raises the question: which source did she use for the year 1912 itself? We avoid that problem by going with a single article for the 1910s, with a single citation to Hackett. We just rely on her, and don't worry about which source she used. Thoughts? BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, for fantasy task force articles, I noticed there are two tags: "importance" and "fantasy-importance".

{{WikiProject Novels
|class=
|importance=
|fantasy-task-force=yes
|fantasy-importance=
}}

Just to understand, are they meant to be independent tags? As in, a book could be a mid-importance novel, but a high-importance fantasy novel.

Examples of books currently tagged this way: The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, The Witcher. A book that isn't, but probably should be: American Gods (tagged as "mid" for both). So I wanted to check before re-tagging. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting here because there is a featured article candidate about a novel (Seventy-Six (1823) by John Neal (1793–1876)) that is in need of editors to review and comment on the content of the article. Otherwise, it may be archived soon due to inactivity. That nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seventy-Six (novel)/archive1. I'm told that it is fairly rare to see articles about novels nominated for featured article status, so perhaps that makes this of particular interest to this group. If you're unfamiliar with reviewing featured article candidates, see WP:FAC before you read through the article or make any comments on the nomination. Thank you in advance for your willingness to review the article and comment on the nomination! Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:A Man Called Ove (novel)#Requested move 19 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpoint seems pretty loopy, and there hasn't been any move to reduce the primary emphasis on Rowling's novels in the lead.

But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the RfC, especially since the article has seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing, against the sources provided for the article. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I've had A Beautiful Crime, a 2020 novel by Christopher Bollen, at FAC for the past few weeks and it was recently added to the "FAC urgents" list by a coordinator, meaning that it is in need of some more comments. Please feel free to leave comments at the FAC page if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Beautiful Crime/archive1. Many thanks! DanCherek (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Uncle Tom's Cabin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 07:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please share at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kirkus_Reviews,_again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. It should be noted somewhere for reference. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As with all refs, they must be used in their context. In your article on Isabel Thomas in the link above, you use Kirkus Reviews as citations and references (there is a difference) for the title of two books and what another book is generally about. I'm sure Kirkus Reviews is reliable for that information. maclean (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

it may be reliable for the title , but there's always a better source like Worldcat. She is a notable author, and there are references from unquestioneable R. There's no need to use borderline sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC) �

That and a bit of "DUE-ness", I wasn't going to list all. I tend to think of them all as "refs" Per WP:

"Words like citation and reference are used interchangeably on the English Wikipedia. On talk pages, where the language can be more informal, or in edit summaries or templates where space is a consideration, reference is often abbreviated ref, with the plural refs. Footnote may refer specifically to citations using ref tag formatting or to explanatory text; endnotes specifically refers to citations placed at the end of the page. See also: Wikipedia:Glossary." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yo. I need a helping hand with the Maurice LeBlanc novel 813 that got sent to draft-space a while back (see Draft:813 (novel)). The tips suggested me to "asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject" and here I am. I have bit limited knowledge on Arsene Lupin, but I do know enough that 813 is brought up a lot in discussions by the series fans. It seems academic sources on this book are limited and/or escape my attention and I need somebody who knows something to drag this piece from Draftspace. Or have I misunderstood 813's relevance? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I started the formal FA review on The Well of Loneliness. Your input there and further contributions to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User:George Ho has nominated The Well of Loneliness for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I started this discussion, and it led to the following interesting question:

Should categories like Category:African-American novels and Category:Jewish American novels be based on the background of the author or the content of the work? If you have an opinion, please share at the Cfd-page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at Power Boys and assessing it per WP:NBOOK. It was created back in 2008 and there seem to have been some good-faith attempts at improving it over the years, but most of the sources cited seem to be primary (i.e. to the book (or books) itself). It also appears that the who the actual author was is unclear which might be another reason why better sourcing is so hard to find. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm working on The Sacrifice (Oates novel) after a failed GA nomination. The major point of concern was OR and SYNTH, especially in the "Setting" section. I was definitely sloppy — not selecting the best sources and interpolating information not found in the sources I did cite — but that aside, I'm wondering what the threshold for SYNTH is in giving background information about a novel's setting. The novel was recently published and there aren't any sources about the novel that discuss the setting (1980s northern New Jersey) in depth, so the section would have to be written with sources that don't mention the novel at all. Is that acceptable, or should the section be removed entirely? Rublov (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is simply delete the sentences that do not have a source in a review or a newspaper of the era (early 1970s). With those sentences out, then the setting is noted and described by sources. - - Prairieplant (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello - I recently did a pretty substantial rework of the article for Go Tell It on the Mountain (novel) which was in a pretty sorry state. Since then, a couple of typos have been fixed but not too much else. I saw it was rate High Importance for this Project so wanted to flag it here so anyone interested could take a look and make further improvements. Although it is still rated Start, I think it's probably B now, but it could definitely benefit from whatever attention any experienced editor from this project is willing to give. GA is probably achievable with a bit of work if someone is so inclined. Thanks! InspectorTiger (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

InspectorTiger The article looks well organized. An immediate need is entries under the Bibliography heading I just added, the place to put full references for the short refs in References to Campbell 2021, Kenan 1994, and Leeming 1994. The sfn format was used in the text, which is fine, no need to change that. It does not appear that the full length references were deleted any time recently. I hope they are easy to find. -- Prairieplant (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is The Magic Bedknob; or, How to Become a Witch in Ten Easy Lessons and the The Magic Bed Knob the same book or different books by author Mary Norton. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The two books show the same ISBN in the respective info boxes. That looks like the same book being described in two separate articles. I did not look up who added the ISBN in each case. -- Prairieplant (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It was just pointed out to me that Template:WikiProject Novels makes a reference to "articles mentioned below", but a talk page wikiproject banner will never have articles listed below...? You can see it in situ, for example, at Talk:Devil in a Blue Dress. I've never noticed this before but it now seems very off. I think the project banner template ought to be edited so that, instead of saying If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. it just said If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. Is there consensus to make this edit? Or are there supposed to be "articles mentioned below" on talk pages?? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that may have been a relic from 2006 (example). In any case, I support the proposed change. DanCherek (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense for the origin of the phrase! Then it seems unlikely that someone will come out of the woodwork explaining why the existing language should stay; I'll go forward semi-boldly in changing it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Imprisoned with the Pharaohs#Requested move 17 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There are three Featured Article Save Award nominations at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The article The Proud and the Free has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly lacking in reliable sources (about the topic) and evidence of notability for 11.84 years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A less than two minute search revealed this book which is helpful and anyone can use to tidy up the article. I've added a sentence to start the process. Also fixed the WP:CWW issue. There are probably other sources - the author was a communist and somewhat controversial. Suggest removing the tag, Fourthords. Victoria (tk) 21:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place, but just letting you know there's a draft article about the Third Fowl Twins novel at Draft:The Fowl Twins Get What They Deserve if anyone's interested in improving it. It's barely anything at the minute.

I partially filled out the infobox and deleted the text that was already there. KaraLG84 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Demon Princes. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The article Angel of Music, or The Private Life of Giselle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not even remotely notable. In addition, it's possible this might be a hoax.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

With Angel of Music, or The Private Life of Giselle now deleted, I'd now like to make formal request for it to be added to the hoax museum. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Kingkiller Chronicle § Merger proposals has been open for nearly a year - anyone interested in closing it? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I am looking for a work that seems to be either a detective or a political or spy thriller. I only remember the beginning of the piece. A guy found a derelict computer, sat down at it and started to do something, and then he saw a man with a gun walk up to the desk, the guy automatically pressed the enter button and the man shot him back. The work came out in the 1990s. The work came out no later than the 1990s (maybe sooner). I also remember that the guy was doing something enthusiastically on the computer: at first he was typing without looking at the screen, but the message on the computer monitor made him do his work more slowly and carefully. The phrases went something like this. The message on the computer screen made him work more carefully. There was a man standing at the desk, a gun in his hand. The guy had never seen a real gun except in movies, but he knew right away what it was. The guy's hand mechanically fell on the Enter button and that second the black muzzle of the gun burst into flames, ending his life. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I nominated the 1828 American novel Rachel Dyer for featured article status. I drafted the article myself and saw it through good article status already. Being the first novel about the Salem witch trials and having an important influence on later American novelists, I wonder if someone from this Wikiproject would be willing to comment on the nomination before it is archived for inactivity. Here's the nomination. Thanks in advance for any attention it may get! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• See WP:ELNEVER:

  For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. ... Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement.

• See Harry Potter articles linking to http:// www.accio-quote.org, which seems to exist only to host copyright violations related to Harry Potter. (The website mostly hosts scanned copies of news articles.)

These policy violations should be removed from all Harry Potter articles: please mark them done as you replace or remove the ELNEVER accio-quote references.

1. Albus Dumbledore  Done Poirot09 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
2. Avatar (computing)  Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
3. Bumblebee  Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
4. The Chronicles of Narnia  Done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Draco Malfoy  Done by Poirot09 on May 12 100.7.36.213 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
6. Dumbledore's Army  Done Poirot09 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
7. Elizabeth Goudge  Done DanCherek (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
8. Fictional portrayals of psychopaths  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
9. Fictional universe of Harry Potter  Done Poirot09 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
10. Ginny Weasley  Done DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
11. Harry Potter (GA)  Done Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
12. Harry Potter (character)  Done Poirot09 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
13. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire  Done Poirot09 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
14. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban  Done Poirot09 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
15. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone  Done Poirot09 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
16. Harry Potter fandom  Done Poirot09 (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
17. Harry Potter (film series)  Done DanCherek (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
18. Harry Potter influences and analogues  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
19. Hermione Granger  Done Poirot09 (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
20. Hogwarts  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
21. Jessica Mitford  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
22. John Nettleship  Done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
23. List of fictional cats in literature  Done DanCherek (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
24. List of supporting Harry Potter characters  Done Poirot09 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
25. London Underground in popular culture  Done DanCherek (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
26. Lord Voldemort  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
27. Low fantasy  Done DanCherek (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
28. Luna Lovegood  Done Poirot09 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
29. Magic in fiction  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
30. Magic in Harry Potter  Done Poirot09 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
31. Magical creatures in Harry Potter  Done by TNstingray on August 2 100.7.36.213 (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
32. Magical objects in Harry Potter  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
33. Magician (fantasy)  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
34. Minerva McGonagall  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
35. Ministry of Magic  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
36. Muggle  Done Poirot09 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
37. Neville Longbottom  Done Poirot09 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
38. Order of the Phoenix (fictional organisation)  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
39. Places in Harry Potter  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
40. Politics of Harry Potter  Done Poirot09 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
41. Religious debates over the Harry Potter series Couldn't find any - I assume somebody's already  Done this one. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
42. Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia  Done Poirot09 (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
43. Remus Lupin  Done Poirot09 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
44. Robbie Coltrane  Done DanCherek (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
45. Ron Weasley  Done Couldn't fine any, so someone must have already removed it. TNstingray (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
46. Rubeus Hagrid  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
47. Severus Snape  Done TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
48. Shipping (fandom)  Done Poirot09 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
49. Sirius Black  Done DanCherek (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
50. Snape, Suffolk  Done ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
51. The Tales of Beedle the Bard  Done Poirot09 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
52. This Is Spinal Tap  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
53. Three Witches  Done DanCherek (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
54. West Country English  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
55. Wizarding World  Done Poirot09 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

PS, because J. K. Rowling has been extensively reworked to remove the hosting of copyright violations, it is a good place to look for alternate sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, in replacing or removing the accio-quote links, please take care also with The Leaky Cauldron (website), which is a blog and a fansite (not a WP:RS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the situation this simple? The first reference I checked at Hermione Granger (within the domain name, it's /articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm) appears to be a transcript of Rowling on a book festival panel, not published elsewhere. It's not a copy of a news article as far as I can see: the text seems unpublished elsewhere, except mirrored on the Harry Potter Wiki. Most of the other stuff I've seen on the site is this sort of transcription of real life panels or early internet interviews where the content would not be permanently logged. Likely unreliable but I don't know if it's copyright violating. On the other hand, where there are news article transcripts, the solution may be to cite that news article directly. — Bilorv (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of them are scanned news articles (which sometimes cannot be found, even using Proquest); there are occasional interviews, but we should never link to an external link that hosts copyright violations, so that rules out the dubious reliability of the interviews (which are used for a lot of content that is possibly not DUE anyway, if no one else published it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I am not a member of this WikiProject, but I had already gone through and removed several instances of accio-quotes after finding one page and doing a Wikipedia search from there (I am a member of the Harry Potter task force). I also worked on residual elements in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Magic in Harry Potter, and I also removed an accio-quote from historical poet William McGonagall discussing how his name supposedly inspired Rowling. Thanks to 100.7.36.213 for bringing this to my attention. I have properly attributed myself credit for the various articles I worked on (these were accomplished on August 2). Thank you. TNstingray (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry for the rudeness. Didn't know you weren't a member of this WikiProject. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to have a second opinion in the wording for these two introductions for The Hunchback of Notre-Dame just between these two version current version and the oldversion, please add your opinion in the discussion page here. Thanks! as promised, here is the discussion @Stephanie921 —MCarlos(talk) MCarlos (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Readers of the novels by Tony Hillerman may be interested to edit the article about his character Joe Leaphorn, as the entire article has been put up for speedy deletion here. -- Prairieplant (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Twilight (Meyer novel)#Requested move 29 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a proposal about the scope and potential renaming of this article, for which other editors' input is welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:James Joyce § Should the article have an infobox I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The Awkward Age (Henry James novel) is suffering badly from citation needed, MOS:WEASEL, maybe other problems.

Can anyone take a look?

- 189.122.243.241 (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line for who is a main character and who isn't in a book? Ijustlikefootball (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, don't understand "who is a main character and who isn't in a book". Could you re-phrase please? MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it just needs a comma after the isn't... GrahamHardy (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

In the past I began adding new article novels to sections containing "Publication History" (for example After the Fire, A Still Small Voice) Years ago I was told not to add such sections, so I stopped adding them. Is everyone happy for me to delete the sections from all the past book articles that I created? (Or should I start adding them) Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:Manual of Style/Novels#Publication_history probably has what you want. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like I should remove all the publication histories from the earlier book articles I created. GrahamHardy (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now removed them. GrahamHardy (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Penguin Random House has uploaded book covers and more for popular titles on Wikimedia Commons under a free license. The covers are the German versions. I replaced the non-free pictures File:Necromancer.jpg, File:StrataPratchett.jpg, File:Fantastic Voyage Novel.jpg with free versions File:Der unheimliche Geisterrufer (Michael Scott, 2011).jpg, File:Strata oder die Flachwelt (Terry Pratchett, 1983).jpg and File:Die phantastische Reise (Isaac Asimov, 1983).jpg. Original uploader of the non-free images User:GrahamHardy is of the opinion that the English language non-free covers should be used.

1. Is a non-free cover necessary to illustrate an article if the cover is not discussed in the article?
2. Does using a non-free file over a freely licensed one clash with the goals of this project?

Hekerui (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have opened a WP:Peer review request for Mars in fiction in preparation for WP:Featured article nomination, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Mars in fiction/archive1. Any and all feedback would be appreciated. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I am Looking for one book. I only remember the beginning of the piece. Some guy found a derelict computer, sat down at it and started doing something, and then he saw a man with a gun walk up to the desk, they looked at each other in silence for a while, then the guy mechanically pressed the Enter button and the man shot him back. The work was read in the 1990s or very early 2000s. The piece appeared no later than the 1990s (probably earlier). I also remember that the guy was doing something enthusiastically on the computer: at first he typed without looking at the screen, but the message on the computer monitor made him do his work more slowly and carefully. The phrases went something like this. The message on the computer screen made him work more carefully. Behind the desk stood a man with a gun in his hand. The guy had never seen a real gun, except in the movies, but he knew immediately what it was. The guy's hand dropped mechanically to the Enter button, and the same second the black muzzle of the gun burst into flames, ending his life. Thank you in advance. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place for that kind of question. Try reddit or another internet forum.Ijustlikefootball (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What forums do you recommend? I've already posted on reddit. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless of course someone here knows the book! GrahamHardy (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If a work was serialized before being published, should this count as the publication date? What if the work were serialized over two years? I think sticking to independent publication date is generally better because 1. it's simpler and can't stretch over two years; 2. there might be substantial changes between the serialized and the final versions; and 3. I think this is the more common was of determining publication date.

However, I can't find explicit guidance on this. Can anyone point out what I've missed, or offer a suggestion? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. For things like novels, the date conventionally quoted more or less everywhere is the date of first publication in book form even where it has been serialised beforehand. Serialisation dates and places, where known, can be discussed in the text. Obviously there will be exceptions, and serial-only works need to be treated differently, but generally that's the date for the the infobox and short description. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I did feel it was obvious.

If nobody objects, I'll edit to make that explicit. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is only tangentially related, but if you are trying to model serialized book data on Wikidata, I am interested in developing a consensus. So far I have this list on my Wikidata sandbox of two different ways to model a serial work (under "Serial work"). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I know nothing about Wikidata and can't be of help, I'm afraid. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peter Grant (book series)#Requested move 16 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 07:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Y'all may want to take a look at this unsourced addition: [3] 76.14.122.5 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working with a small group of mostly-librarians to launch a new Wikimedia campaign focused on books, #EveryBookItsReader. Please let me know if you have any questions. Bridges2Information (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, recently another user has been adding more details to the character list on Twilight (Meyer novel). I'm not sure the character list adds that much to the page, and I'd like to remove it entirely. However, I'm not sure what the current consensus on character lists for book pages is. Are people still making them? Do some people like them? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Should the "WikiProject Novels" tag be added to the talk pages of novelists, or only novels? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed that a lot of articles on novellas are inconsistently categorised - some have categories relating to novels, and others have categories relating to short stories. Some use the short short template and some use the novel template. I have created Category:Novellas by decade to try and assist with properly categorising novellas by date. McPhail (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Mary: A Fiction for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This novel is the fourth of the series in chronological order.

Am I alone in worrying that this is ambiguous between publication date and internal sequence? The word chronological means 'concerning time', and it's not obvious that it should refer to one of the two relevant kinds of time and not the other. When it's clear I sometimes change the wording. Wonder whether it's worth discussing a policy on this. —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please help us settle a dispute over whether to merge the page Uchronia to Alternate history; see the full discussion here: Talk:Uchronia#Merge to Alternate history. Wolfdog (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Would some members of this WikiProject take a look at Carol Sklenicka? The article seems to start out as a BLP about Sklenicka but the focus then shifts to being mainly about two of her books. Perhaps there's enough about each of these books per WP:NBOOK for separate articles to be created about each of these books? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Frankenstein's Promethean dimension —has been proposed for merging with Victor Frankenstein. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —Alalch E. 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC) —Alalch E. 23:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please participate in a Request for Comments at Talk:Maske:_Thaery#RFC_on_Plot_Summary.  Maske: Thaery is a 1976 novel by Jack Vance.  The question in the RFC is which version of the plot summary should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated George Moore (novelist) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The longest work of early American fiction, Brother Jonathan by John Neal, is nominated for featured article status. Here's the nomination page if you're interested. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am copy pasting this notification from my talk page to get input. All opinions welcome.

Category:Outer space in fiction has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. 4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Woulds someone from WP:NOVELS mind taking a look at Chinese Cinderella: The Mystery of the Song Dynasty Painting and assessing it per WP:NBOOK. It's be tagged with {{Unreferenced}} since October 2012 and doesn't look like it's been improved much since then. In it's current state, it doesn't appear to be anything other that a plot summary; moreover, a Google search of the book's title gets some hits, but nothing that seems to resemble any type of critical review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Took me a decent amount of time, but I finally found out why a Google search of the book's title gets so little useful hits. If you search the title on GBooks, one of the results is "Along the River: A Chinese Cinderella Novel." I didn't think much of it, but when I clicked in, it said

Originally published in paperback as Chinese Cinderella: The Mystery of the Song Dynasty Painting...

Searching this new title gives enough results to meet WP:NBOOK. Reviews in Publisher's Weekly, School Library Journal, Kirkus. The plot matches up with the article, so there's little doubt as to whether they're the same book. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks ARandomName123 for taking the time to look into this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Janissaries series to be moved to Janissaries (series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hiya! I've been discussing an article with a newer user (@Samuel Adrian Antz) and would like a second opinion on original research and primary sourcing in articles about novels.

Notability of the books aside, are sections like Dichronauts#Background (mathematics and physics) and The Eternal Flame (novel)#Background (mathematics and physics) good to keep? Personally it feels like either synthesis or over reliance on primary sources, is there an exception in fictional works? Justiyaya 16:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m actually a little torn, so I’m going to think aloud a bit. None of these background sections (including the “background (literature)” one on The Eternal Flame) look like what I expect from a “background” section. Typically I think of the “background” section as a place to describe contextual information about the book’s publication— see Beachy Head (poem). So my first instinct is that all this math can’t possibly be WP:DUE or reflected in the sources.

But then I notice that the source is actually Egan, the book’s author. At the Beachy Head article, even when writing about the French Revolution and Romanticism there, I’m citing sources that are primarily about the poem: in other words, including this background is a way of following the sources. WP:SYNTH would have been citing works on romanticism that don’t mention Smith (in my case) or math papers that don’t mention Egan’s books (in this case). But at first glance, these sources don’t look like WP:SYNTH because the source does make the direct link between the book and the math.

But of course, an author’s personal website isn’t usually a WP:RS. And there’s still the matter of what’s WP:DUE in an encyclopedia article. I think I would lean toward a more “zoomed out” use of these sources from Egan, saying things like, “Egan’s website provides detailed mathematical explanations of how the book applies X and Y concepts”, wikilinking the concepts and citing the sources. That makes the information available to mathematically inclined readers without derailing the article as a whole. At least, that’s how I’d go about it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The reception section of Acrobat (novel) mentions what review sites, all considered reliable sources, said about the book, and references those official sites linking to the actual reviews there. An editor has tagged these places with a "better sources needed" tag. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acrobat_%28novel%29&diff=1197539304&oldid=1197503587 Dream Focus 03:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The edit has already been reverted, but I am not sure why we would want to instead cite sources quoting the reviews we are quoting. As an aside, I realise PW and Kirkus are embedded in the publishing industry and accept indie submissions, but they are in no way "review mills". They are highly reliable and respected sources. Οἶδα (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book#Proposal to deprecate "country" in favor of "location" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Οἶδα (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a book series I was quite fond of when I was younger and I'd like to improve the pages but I'm not sure about the best way to go about it. The first book is notable, while the rest are kind of scattershot - the fourth book, strangely, seems to fulfill NBOOK, while I'm not sure the rest do. I was able to find one review for each of them at least. They've been tagged for uncertain notability for over a decade. Should I merge all but the first into the series page (which has virtually no content)? Unsure how that works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Cumulative coverage can validate the existence of a holistic article, but not necessarily for each entry. If you evaluate that certain entries fail NBOOK then I would go ahead and merge and redirect to the series page. And the series article would stand to gain from the merger given it has little or no content. The Neapolitan Novels, for example, was broken into separate articles due to extensive coverage for each book. The article remains a structured overview, but if you look at the page before it was split[4] you can get a good idea of these types of articles. Even if the two individual articles are somewhat developed (plot summaries etc), I would still merge if they fail NBOOK. Οἶδα (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah a few have plot summaries but no reception or development or anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Inheritance Cycle#Requested move 23 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 03:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a problematic new editor called Themashup who is currently adding results from the "review aggregator" IDreamBooks to literary items. They don't seem sufficiently encyclopedic to me to warrant inclusion. Could this problem be taken to administrator level and a ruling made whether its use is legitimate by WP guidelines? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50, if you tried to ping @Themashup, you didn't succeed, check your link. A couple of diffs you see as problematic could help people form an opinion. At a glance, iDreamBooks could be an acceptable WP:EL in some cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but could you, when sending messages, not use a strong and problematic attitude (personally I found your attitude of rude and talking down to me and felt it could've been expressed better but understand I overthink things). I like to keep things positive and all and if any problems come up I am trying to always talk civil and be positive though I am not perfect as we all aren't. It just bothered me a bit and I want to start to be a bit more open. Themashup (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to provide diffs. Here's 1 for Mansfield Park and another for Hamlet, since reverted by another editor as "not the best source" per WP:NPOV. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For Hamlet that made sense since the site didn't provide score since didn't have enough reviews but thought it worked for contemporary views. Mansfield Park was given a score and with 11 critic reviews which reflects modern critic views of the work. I could've added more commentary explaining that looking back but it works well in showing modern (21st century) views of a work. I was trying to add a sentence saying a preface to it to show this is ref. to 21st century and more modern views after time but acc. put "contemporary" thinking it meant 21st century lol and tried to change it but got message from you to stop editing.

Almost forgot, iDreamBooks is also not just some site it had alot behind it (such as mul. media places discussing it) and some relation to Sony. It was intended it seems to be a RT of books for modern and sometimes classical books and it seems more newer reception of them after all these years.

In that sense, I don't see the issue with it at all and find it problematic to hide 21st century looks at works and to shelter it to one viewpoint at one time when, with Pride and Prejudice for instance, there is a whole section discussing 21st century reception yet nothing but lists is there and iDreamBooks would be, imo, a perfect place to show 21st century views as intended.

It would be like saying RT and Metacritic shouldn't be on any old film's wiki page in that sense. Though, you might be critical of how I forgot to preface it which is true but I could simply add a couple of sentences fixing that. If I should've asked everyone or something please tell me how and I will I get so confused by this site and it's rules sometimes. Themashup (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I wrote my post below without reading yours. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok. In those examples. there is no WP:RS problem (any source is an RS for its own words), the idea may be that this is similar to adding Rotten Tomatoes to a film-article, which is fairly common. Plus points for the well-made cites. Seems like good faith edits.

The question is rather, is it a good idea to add IDreamBooks per WP:NPOV (those who haven't read it, please do). I'm leaning no, based on that I've never heard of it and it seems to be inactive. In an article like Hamlet, mentioning IDreamBooks in-text seems to fail WP:PROPORTION IMO. It may be an ok WP:EL in some cases. Ping @Poirot09 if you wish to comment.

However @Sweetpool50, per WP:OWNTALK, you should not have made this edit [5]. @Themashup can remove comments from their talkpage if they want to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The site shouldn't be included at all, imo. Some of the "critic reviews" seem to be from blogs (ex. [6]), so it doesn't even pass WP:EL criteria. Here, they say they have a "criteria", but they don't specify it so I'm a little bit skeptic (and anyway, we don't usually add "consumer ratings" to Wikipedia). Poirot09 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Taking the Hamlet one [7] as example, it's a bit of a mixed bag, but stuff included like [8][9] is a fairly clear indication of "not good enough." So yeah, I'm at "don't include." There may still be an argument for WP:ELMAYBE#4 in some cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To add another concern, I'm not sure some relation to Sony is a recommendation for its reliability. I immediately thought of the incident (from 2001) where Sony published fake movie reviews, resulting in an out-of-court settlement, and was accused of using employees posing as moviegoers in television commercials (see David Manning (fictitious writer)). The site appears to be defunct, but based on the iDreamBooks article, it aggregates views of professional critics "as well as from writers who were vetted by the website and allowed to submit reviews". "Revenue is generated from paid partnerships, of which the first one was the Sony Reader store partnership." I know Wikipedia is an unsuitable source for articles, but I hope it's useful in discussions like these. In my opinion, iDreamBooks should not be regarded as a reliable source. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it offers meaningful encyclopedia value to cite a defunct review aggregator site for reviews of "classics". Contemporary reception is of course worth discussing but it is best supported by much more rigorous sources like this one. The iDreamBooks are neither restricted to just RS, nor comprehensive of all non-RS sources, and so the aggregate score is not very informative. I actually think it is more informative to include the average GoodReads rating, since at least people have a sense of what GoodReads is and it's a currently active site. All of the edits citing iDreamBooks strike me as entirely good-faith but not something I would personally advocate to include. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(For books published during the site's operational years, I suspect it is a more comprehensive resource and so more likely to be informative, though I don't think it rises to the RottenTomatoes level of informative.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree and share your concerns. Albeit harmless, there's very little encyclopedic value to these additions. For example, how does this edit to David Copperfield make the article more informative to Dickens readers? As you alluded to, it is not reasonable to say readers have any sense of what iDreamBooks is (or was, to be exact). And even if they do, are readers consulting a Victorian literature article really interested in the opinions of Teen Ink, Gather Books, Brothers Judd, http://www.bookdrum.com, http://www.reviewstream.com, http://roofbeamreader.com, So Many Books, and For What It's Worth?

In general, I find aggregates to be far less interesting for books than for film or television. Prose is far more valuable. Ratings and scores are not even a fixture of literary criticism, and for a good reason in my opinion. Οἶδα (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The articles on the 13 Inspector Morse series novels by Colin Dexter need work. Only one includes reviews of the novels, and few have any inline citations at all. The first novel is Last Bus to Woodstock, from which you can access the following twelve. I put in a References section in each article, anticipating that there will be inline citations some day. Few have a Plot summary that covers the resolution as well as the crimes, fewer list the the characters. I read one of the novels, The Jewel That Was Ours, and I found two reviews of that novel online. My plot summary is too long by 400 words, so I need to shorten it someday. Two of his novels won the Gold Dagger award for Crime novels, and there is no plot summary for one of those novels nor any external reviews.

I have read just the one book in the series, so I cannot do more than set up a more consistent pattern in the articles. I could hunt for reviews, which I suspect are out there, online perhaps. There is a book cited in each article that apparently collects reviews of the novels, but I do not have that book. The novels were adapted into a television series, and then two more television series, on following the main character's death (Inspector Lewis or Lewis), and the other exploring Morse's early days in the police force (Endeavour). The actor who player Morse, John Thaw, was a very good actor, drawing many viewers to the television series. I tried to separate the mentions of the adaptations from the sections on the novels. There is an article with a List of Inspector Morse episodes, and the plot summaries in those are mainly blurbs; even the longer ones never get to the denouement. Anyway, there are many opportunities for work on the articles about the novels or about the television series. I did expect that the novels would have more complete articles, given the interest in the series, so help is welcome! --Prairieplant (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the article can be a Featured Article. It is a BLP, and seems to me to be balanced, and it is very interesting, as well as thorough. I did read some of the dialogue on the talk page, and has perhaps created a good article on a living person. I cannot figure where else to put this comment, Adam Cuerden, so here it is. - - Prairieplant (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

inspector axel Rasmussen tracks down killers in western Australian outback and brings them to justice. 103.189.63.92 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Justine (de Sade novel)#Requested move 14 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding a proposed merge at Talk:You Like It Darker § Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The article Justinian (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

almost 9 years later, I do not believe this meets the notability guidelines for a book. Although the author is often discussed and interviewed, this pen name and novel has not been covered as far as I can tell except by a few blogs.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gnisacc (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does Ubik use ISBN and OCLC of a British edition published in 2006? It would be more sensibile to use OCLC of the first edition by Doubleday, wouldn't it?-- Carnby (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the DOAWK task force is defunt, I'm asking here, are the individual books notable? I think that the books are notable, but I also need community consensus. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: The relevant guideline here is WP:NBOOK. For a book, receiving at least two reviews would usually be sufficient to count as notable. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

A while ago, I proposed merging Draft:The Outskirter's Secret, Rosemary Kirstein, and The Steerswoman all to a combined series article Steerswoman books. On the talk page, there was a thumbs-up and no objections, except... I've now read the first book and really liked it, so I don't want to read the spoilery plot summary of the second one! Would someone here be willing to help out and execute this merge so I can stay spoiler-free? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've now read the whole series, haha, so I can perform the merge myself -- matter resolved. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Godric#Requested move 12 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking for one book. I only remember the beginning of the piece. Some guy found a derelict computer, sat down at it and started doing something, and then he saw a man with a gun walk up to the desk, they looked at each other in silence for a while, then the guy mechanically pressed the Enter button and the man shot him back. The work was read in the 1990s or very early 2000s. The piece appeared no later than the 1990s (probably earlier). I also remember that the guy was doing something enthusiastically on the computer: at first he typed without looking at the screen, but the message on the computer monitor made him do his work more slowly and carefully. The phrases went something like this. The message on the computer screen made him work more carefully. Behind the desk stood a man with a gun in his hand. The guy had never seen a real gun, except in the movies, but he knew immediately what it was. The guy's hand dropped mechanically to the Enter button, and the same second the black muzzle of the gun burst into flames, ending his life. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you will have more luck with Reddit's "What's that book" forum. See also WP:NOTFORUM. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I already wrote there. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated Tom Swift for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

When a book publisher says the book is a "National Bestseller", what does it mean? See for example: [10]. Mika1h (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Tyrion Lannister has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Melange (fictional drug)#Requested move 23 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be really helpful to get more opinions here. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated The Hardy Boys for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

After a close review, the following merge discussion that may be of interest to this WikiProject has been reopened: Talk:You Like It Darker § Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker. Your participation to assist in reaching a consensus would be appreciated. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)#Requested move 1 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I'm seeking views on what time period could be considered 'contemporary' (as in modern). I've been doing some work on the List of contemporary epistolary novels page, which contains examples back to 1795(!) I'm wondering what the cut-off point should be? Around 50 years ago? Blackballnz (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see value in updating a list that deprecates itself? If you make the cut-off point 50 years ago, then next year surely you'd need to remove the oldest entries. In 10 years, it will be either curated or a list that includes 60+ years of novels. I think this list is malformed and should have a clearer inclusion range (e.g., by century). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 09:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The article needs to be restructered and renamed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thirding this— lists by century strike me as appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This page, Epistolary novel (which needs a tidy up), already lists novels by 18th, 19th, 20th & 21st centuries, so we would be repeating what is already in an article.... Blackballnz (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Then delete the list? It's a completely pointless exercise engineered to fail. You could tidy that article up instead and serve more readers: The article received 5,000 pageviews last year, compared to epistolary novel's 31,000. There is no sense having a list that deprecates itself and requires constant editor attention to correct. I strongly recommend deleting this and creating separate lists of novels by century, then linking to them with "See also" under the century headings in epistolary novel . There is at least encyclopaedic value there. You can consider "contemporary novels" to be the 21st-century list. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 09:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Epistolary novel is not in exceptional shape and would really benefit from being un-listified, so it would be quite helpful to revise it in the way ImaginesTigers describes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement on a desirable end result, namely tidy up Epistolary novel and create spin-out list articles for 18th, 19th, 20th & 21st centuries. Rather than deleting List of contemporary epistolary novels, it could simply be moved to List of 21st century epistolary novels, with the other list articles created as needed. I'm not sure why ImaginesTigers reply was phrased so negatively, as the original question was perfectly good, and the way forward seems quite clear. Thanks for working on this, Blackballnz. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: I'll be more mindful of my tone in case you show up again 🫡 — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: There is enough crap in the world without me adding to it because I'm grumpy. Sorry, you were right. @Blackballnz: Thanks for bringing it up and hope you get around to it. Sorry about my attitude. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Template:Odyssey navbox and invite participation from other editors. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book#New field request: word count and invite participation from other editors. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Was the plot summary at Matrix (Groff novel)#Summary created by an AI language model? Οἶδα (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, undoubtedly. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought as much. I would ask you Create a template to refrain from using large language models to generate plot summaries as you did at Matrix (Groff novel). Particularly if the summaries you contribute to Wikipedia are not only generally misrepresentative of the subject but actually wildly innaccurate. Was this edit to Starling House also AI-generated? I believe so. Οἶδα (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I did not make that addition so I am not sure who you're responding to; I invite you to create your own template for such instances. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

(“Create a template” is the name of a user that Οἶδα is pinging to the discussion) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Brb, trouting myself...— ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was referring to the user whose name is Create a template. They added the incorrect AI summary to Matrix. Οἶδα (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The entirety of The Sentence (novel) was unsourced and AI-generated by Josephkugelmass. The plot summary at The Committed#Plot added by Deckkohl was similarly awful and obviously AI-generated. According to Wiki policy, all text generated by LLMs should be verified by editors before use in articles (WP:LLM). This includes the hallucinations added to the aforementioned pages. Οἶδα (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As I am sure some of you are aware, an editor named Themashup (talk · contribs) has decided to become a single-purpose account for essentially replicating the standard Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregates from film articles onto book articles. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there is a similar utility with review aggregates for literary works, both in theory and through the examples in practice. Ratings and scores are naturally not even a fixture of literary criticism. These additions seem to be particularly uninformative to readers. They have very little encyclopedic value as they communicate nothing to the substance of the reviewers' critiques. Film reviews are far greater in number and better aggregated, and thus more informative and perhaps better suited to those articles. The aggregator sites themself are also far more prominent in their respective community, with film critics and audiences widely recognising and participating in their existence. Book Marks is perhaps the more reliable site but, again, its addition is not of great utility in my estimation.

Themashup's edits often include websites which aggregate very few reviews, but also add a website which is now defunct, as well as introduce several extraneous references. I also find it inappropriate, and have expressed as such, that they are incorporting ratings templates () in running text. These edits of theirs have accelerated immensely as of late, including the creation of several stub articles of books (Changing My Mind: Occasional Essays, The Wife of Willesden, The Embassy of Cambodia, Companion Piece (Smith novel), All Our Worldly Goods, Fire in the Blood (Némirovsky novel), Lying Under the Apple Tree, The Hill Bachelors, Cheating at Canasta, Last Stories (Trevor short story collection), Giving Up the Ghost (Mantel novel), The Assassination of Margaret Thatcher, Some Trick: Thirteen Stories, Long Island (novel), The Magician (Tóibín novel), The Source of Self-Regard: Selected Essays, Speeches, and Meditations, The Origin of Others, Summer (Smith novel)) in which the only content are these aggregates and the articles expanded no further. A rather obnoxious interpretation of WP:NBOOK. This is unencylopedic behavior and substance which I do not believe we should welcome or encourage on literary articles.

I will reproduce a comment posted by Chiswick Chap at Talk:The Years (Ernaux book), as it is related to the same additions by Themashup and I do not wish to repeat their sentiments as my own:

An editor has now seen fit, twice, to try to force a trashy aggregation text that says nothing beyond a Facebook-worthy "like", when the article already has multiple, reliably-cited, independent reviews that actually state chapter and verse of what different sources think of the book. They are far better than any amount of "A++" or whatever guff the meta-sites now choose to fluff up their material with. There is no need whatsoever for such rubbish in any article that contains proper reviews; at best, it's a dreadful cheap stop-gap for articles where decent reviews haven't yet been published or are thought to be too much like hard work to discover and summarize: but that is, frankly, the work of editing Wikipedia.

I will also mention an earlier discussion from 6 months ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive 18#IDreamBooks concerning a defunct aggregate website which Themashup was introducing into many literary articles. The discussion included the participation of Sweetpool50, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Poirot09, Willondon and LEvalyn. And in that discussion, which voiced a fairly standard concern about problematic edits, the immediate response from Themashup was to urge that they "not use a strong and problematic attitude" and that they found them "rude and talking down to me and felt it could've been expressed better". So to preempt any concerns, allow me to make it clear that this discussion is a response to content that was added to Wikipedia and is an examination of its encyclopedic vaule. It is not a judgment about your character, integrity, or good faith. Οἶδα (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think, yes, film reviews can be ever-expanding so aggregates are needed, with literary I think there is a purpose to for general examination. So many wikis, in regards to books, lack any to no general idea of clear reception and rather are general statements sometimes not backed by sources and aggregates in turn helped to provide a general window than showing five reviews without any clear demonstration and rather random blurbs sometimes can do. Not to say they are as big, but rather, they help to fill a void of RT or MC in some ways you could say. Many books just have a few reviews by publications on the reception page but that doesn't give a detailed or general idea of reception as, by comparison, a magazine that specializes in collecting and aggregating book reviews and telling you a general critical summary which could possibly do more than showing two reviews. I find it problematic the lack of reception on pages and showing of what some thought. While aggregates are not perfect and are just a possible recommendation window, they provide more possibly than the sometimes simple and shallow three reviews rather than a easy showing of multiple publications.

Book Marks, for instance on one book, showed eighty reviews from mainstream publications which likely would be impossible to show each one, based on guidelines, on wiki and this provides a more simple and clear idea of the reception page. Bookmarks, by comparison, provides sometimes less but instead gives a critical summary followed with a more (out of 5) idea of critical reception that is just for recommendation. Themashup (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm. I agree that book reception sections can often be unhelpfully narrow, perhaps quoting snippets of praise but not giving an overview sense of the book's reception. I disagree strongly that any numerical review aggregator is able to address this problem. I don't think it's an encyclopedia's job to declare a book "good" or "bad", so there's no need to turn prose analysis into a score out of five stars.

My own slightly crotchety view is that book reviews are secondary sources about a book, but they are primary sources about its reception; I think we should use reviews to write sections on style, themes, etc, but avoid comment on whether people loved or hated the book until an RS actually gives us that overview. Most contemporary books do not have secondary sources about their reception and accordingly don't need much in the reception section. You can see my recent article Siren Queen to see what I mean by all this.

It looks like Book Marks sometimes has a prose "critical summary" (as seen here, at the bottom), which is an actual secondary source analyzing the book's reception. These would be quite nice to use as sources, though the way that source was used as Cheating at Canasta does not strike me as the most effective. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the response to a narrow or one-sided use of book reviews must not be to add an uninformative and wordless aggregate number cobbled together from an unspecified group of reviews. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

With Book Marks they show the publication name and the author of each thoughts on the book and Bookmarks does the same and seems to focus on the mainstream press with a good amount reflecting in a manner of sometimes scoring system that seems there to just help get an idea of what press thought then. They are not perfect, but can be great in getting a general idea which can be missing in a couple reviews shown. Themashup (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Reviews are secondary sources by Wikipedia's own definition. They're discussed in the final sentence of that paragraph, and it includes a footnote that explains when they'd be a primary source. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is getting off topic, but I don’t think anything at that link contradicts what I mean here. What I mean is that a review is rarely a good source for a statement like “The book was widely praised.” I see reviews as roughly similar to the case where a historian’s book is secondary about the historical topic but primary about the author’s own experiences: most reviews are secondary about the book but primary about reviews of the book. (After all, most reviewers don’t even know what the other reviews will say, so they can’t possibly discuss the overall reception.) I prefer a retrospective source that can survey the individual reviews and explicitly state “When X book came out, it was widely praised.” In the absence of such a source I prefer to enumerate major reviews individually or just focus on awards. Of course, this is a personal attitude which is certainly shaped by the fact that I usually write about books that are 250 years old. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

And in the absence of such a source, scouring the internet for obscure aggregate websites or a slightly better website which still very few people use does not improve the readers' understanding of the subject in my estimation. Perhaps this leaves me in a minority, but desperately attempting to determine some illusory "overall reception" in the style of ratings/scores which are the norm in the world of film, music and video games but not in literature is scarcely as substantive as parsing and summarising reviews from major publications/critics (aka "professional reviewers or influential opinion-makers" MOS:NOVELS), of which I might add are not colossal in number. And in the articles Themashup created, there are no sections on plot, characters, style, themes, background, publication history etc. Just that something called "Book Marks" says the book "received "rave" reviews based on five critic reviews, with four being "rave" and one being "positive"." I can confidently say I know absolutely nothing of value about these books. As an aside, I abhor the implication that reception sections are even as important as the time spent on this discussion would suggest. Οἶδα (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that but I think that sources like Bookmarks and Book Marks aren't really needed to declare "good" or "bad" as much as just general pictures of what some people think about a book. In turn, it's just kind of reflecting that just like how reception reflects what some think about a book. It is simply just recommendation and the sources like aggregates are to show some peoples takes in a more all together and sometimes summarized manner that can not be, sometimes, on Wiki as possibly clearly as the size can be overloading (like with Book Marks and over eighty reviews for one book that would be hard to show). I think, in that way, they can be good in conveying what mainstream critics thought of something without having to do research or anything, like RT, and work for Wiki in showing reception. For instance, Bookmarks provides usually a paragraph summary, from what I've checked, that's detailed and seems helpful in getting the idea of general reception of press while showing what the press it shows individually thought. Themashup (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

In your crusade to fill this "void" you believe exists, I have witnessed you add a plethora of weak (also defunct) and even non-WP:RS aggregate websites. If this issue were confined to Book Marks I may have never started this discussion. But your zealous edits appear to me more an effort to substitute for something which which does not and likely will not ever exist: a literary aggregator that rises to the level of RT. Top-lining every reception section with these subpar aggregate websites imparts a level of legitimacy I do not believe any of these websites have established. Not even Book Marks. Comparing the traffic and reputation of Book Marks to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, Book Marks is virtually unknown. I might add, journalistic statements unto critical and public consensus predates the existence of these websites. It is false to assume because there is no literary Rotten Tomatoes that we are rendered incapable of reflecting critical assessment.

The passion and stamina you have shown on this project of yours feels sorely misplaced. Stating that we should avoid having to "work for Wiki in showing reception" is the wrong attitude. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Not surrender our duty of probing reliable sources to some substandard aggregator websites. I would implore you to create and contribute full-fledged articles which encompass their subjects. But when confronted with original research you introduced, you already confessed:

Good idea but I just dont feel like doing all that right now. Prob gonna forget about this soon. Only use wiki anyway now to add stuff missing to help scholars or inform people from misinfo I see or whatever so theres some correct info out there. But the work that goes into it isnt for me. If you want to you can, but im just too lazy to do so which is weird since i could write so much but not 2 sentences but 2 sentences just that idea just bores me. Vibes.

I would add that your example of 80 reviews for one book is an extreme and rare instance representative of just about 0% of your edits so I would not cite it as why these aggregates are necessary and useful. You are also implying all 80 of those publications/reviewers are notable enough to even include in prose. Οἶδα (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure these edits can be described as "unencyclopedic". Like, I don't particularly love how the Complete Review sentence was phrased, as it's too wordy for what it's trying to say. But Book Marks and Complete Review are AFAIK reliable sources, and it's useful for readers to get a quick summary of notable reviews of a book. (Lost here is that there's reasons Rotten Tomatoes is so widely used across film articles.) After a simple sentence more detail from individual reviews can be freely added, quoted, or otherwise.

If you'd like a more sweeping prohibition of these sorts of sentences/sources, I'd suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels/WP:RSN. Anything here will be seen as a local consensus. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the more I look at these, the more I think Book Marks especially is OK and even helpful; but the use of these sources in the cited articles has problems of execution. Better prose writing, and a more thorough incorporation of available information, would make the additions more clearly improvements. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed that it is

1. reliable (as far as WP is concerned). the critics included in the aggregate are published in mainstream outlets, magazines, literary journals.

2. helpful, provid overall context of total comprehensive view of a work from literary critics

3. comp to RT, etc. if these can be embedded into the critical reception in movie pages, then it's double-standard to wholesale dismiss Book Marks as a literary parallel.

4. quick, punchy summary that can give readers a high-level feel about how mainstream critics thought.

caveats

1. sometimes there are limited reviews (5-8 of them) for a given work, so this can be statistically insignificant. however, on RT a score is given after about this many ratings.

2. unlike other aggreg, a consensus is not written by the editorial team.

3. not as powerful without complementary discussion involving specific details on why critics like or dislike the book / story

RECOMMENDATION

1. include {{Book Marks}} template and insert the viable information as accessible.

2. provide the link as reference

3. use it at the top of the response sec

4. do not let it stand alone as a catch-all. add substantive details and quotes from individual reviews below to more fully characterize the praise or criticism.

5. just because a user like themashup adds the book marks without more in-depth citations and quotes, doesn't mean that the inclusion is useless; it just means that another user needs to come and supplement it with those in-depth information Create a template (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

And now Themashup has resumed their crusade. This combined with generative AI with large language models has been nothing short of regressive for literature articles. Οἶδα (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

just shut up Create a template (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hence why I purposely did not bother replying to you above. You had just spazzed at me at Talk:Shuggie_Bain, accusing me of dishonestly engaging with you. So it was best to say nothing to you at all. And I believe I have already exhaustively outlined my reasoning above. And believe it or not, I will not just "shut up" on your command. I would ask that you communicate with respect and civility, regardless of how strongly you may disagree with me or anyone else. It is a fundamental pillar of the Wiki community. Οἶδα (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the recent additions... I personally think the effort would be better spent actually reading some of the reviews and using them to write new material for the article (following the principles here), but I don't think the review aggregators are so bad that Themashup's additions are actually disruptive. Though I do really hate the visual star rating templates, and I'd advocate for removing those. And I think there needs to be a mention of how many reviews the aggregator in question has consulted, for the score to have any meaning. (This also usually reveals that it is very few reviews, because numerical ratings are not very important in how books are formally "received".) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

One of them popped up on my watchlist, Special:diff/1275264055, and while the amount seems helpful, the critical summary part seems a bit useless. It's just saying that another sources says whatever.

I'd also agree with removing the inline visual star ratings, they're a bit jarring. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

{[replyto|LEvalyn}} It would be a very reasonable reaction for you to take this conduct to ANI. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with removing the inline visual star ratings. The critical summary could be helpful in giving a consensus like RT. Themashup (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

As I previously quoted above, they already stated here that they are not interested in making any such productive edits that you speak of. See just how brutally they refactored the reception section at Alice in Wonderland. Then in the now-deleted extensive discussion on their user talk page, they further revealed the bizarre motivation behind their crusade:

just trying to add all the details so the next schoalrs reading these articles dont have to worry about forgetting all of this and then getting lectured for not checking page 22 of some ranodm book or knowing that this topic is debated. thats kind of my vibe. adding all the details that seem missing but i am new and horrible at it. wikipedia is so complicated.

...which is ironic given the exceedingly weak citations they have contributed. And in the case of the aforementioned example, the information they added was actually a complete corruption of historical record. So now we see a revival of their crusade with nearly 500 edits across the last 15 days alone, plastering this inane mass of review aggregation across literature articles. If I believed top-lining every reception section with these websites actually improved readers' understanding of the respective books then maybe I would shut up like Create a template commanded of me. But I do not. When I read the section at The Marriage Plot, I am confronted by a paragraph of vapid aggregation. And when I look at We Need to Talk About Kevin, for which there was previously no reception section, I come away with absolutely zero knowledge of the substance of critics' reviews. Οἶδα (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This extremism against aggregation is absurd. My reasoning up there was a little ago and not reliable. Your points are extreme against aggregation and provide little in substance. Aggregation can be helpful in giving a general consensus of a work in a simple and effective manner. They are used in film and television wikis, and there are plenty of recent examples where books have dozens of reviews, which aggregations are useful for. Bookmarks can gather a book's initial reviews and give a critical summary, which provides clarity to the reception. Improving the aggregation used is effective, but tearing it all down is not helpful. Themashup (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to start reposting each and every point I have already made above, most of which were in direct conversation with you. For everything you just said, from the comparison to film and television aggregates to the legitimacy of these websites even including Book Marks, I have made my positions clear. You and I are not going to agree on this topic. Your decision to be a single-purpose account dedicated to introducing all of these websites into thousands of articles makes that crystal clear. And that is fine. So please let's provide space for others to comment. That is precisely why I reactivated the discussion. I am of course not suggesting that you not participate, rather that you and I not regurgitate the same viewpoints. That is not productive to the discussion. Οἶδα (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree completely with Οἶδα (talk)'s objections to Themashup's editing. I recommend opening an RFC to discuss the value of aggregation on WP:MOS/Novels; if the community decides that the editing is problematic then a concerted clean-up effort will be required. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I kept getting notifications, so I wasn't sure if I was being asked to participate. I agree our conversation would not be valuable as it would repeat itself. If it is a matter that brings more discussion, I would care to participate. In this case, I found it vital to add some clarity to your comments even if it is repetitive. This is since I found your comments repetitive and found time to clarify. Regardless, I thank you for saying this. Themashup (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

There's definitely no current consensus around whether adding these sorts of aggregated review sources to articles is a net positive or negative. The way forward is an advertised RfC on a wider page. As I suggested above, I'd go to WP:RSN if you think Book Marks etc. are unreliable or MOS:NOVELS if you think they are inappropriate things to include in articles.

Also, Οἶδα, it's time to take a deep breath and dial down the temperature. Either start a RfC or ignore Themashup's edits. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the review aggregators are a red herring; these sources probably can be used appropriately. (Every now and then, there's one that's fine, like at Wild, where the reception was even more jarring before it started with an 'overview' of some kind.) Themashup, the real problem, I think, is that people are seeing low-quality, high-volume edits that are beginning to overwhelm the topic area. One problem is articles like The God of the Woods, which frankly strikes me as a violation of WP:REDDEAL; there was no need to split this off from the author without at least a plot summary. Another problem is quotes like this one: Gripping … overwhelming … amazing … honest … candid … incredible … superb … his greatest work to date…. Need I say more? It's particularly bizarre to quote other people quoting reviews, as here. Many of these additions feel like they could describe any book. These edits do not add useful information, and they do not follow Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone; they basically regurgitate advertising. Themashup, I think what needs to happen next is for you to take on board the feedback you are receiving on your editing, and try to work more slowly and thoughtfully. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we should just find a standardized way for the aggregator, like how RT and Metacritic have a (mostly) standardized way to report their ratings. Maybe something like

According to review aggregator Book Marks, the book received a "[blank]" consensus, based on [number] reviews.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I would note that the proliferation of such standardized phrasing for even a popular aggregate like Rotten Tomatoes was not without controversy:

"There is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required."

Such a template for Book Marks was recently created by the user Create a template (confusing, I know), but the template was deleted. Again, I do not want to needlessly repeat myself and, as suggested above, a larger discussion should be opened elsewhere. But I feel it necessary to restate that I still do not believe anyone has made a convincing case for the legitimacy of Book Marks. Οἶδα (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to say I would much prefer to see a series of balanced review quotes than a link to an aggregate site like Book Marks (which in any case, seems unduly weighted towards US sources). ArthurTheGardener (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I take feedback always. I disagree with your use of criticizing quotes. For the "Footnotes in Gaza" quote, it is a general look at a chunk of critical reactions. The reactions were overwhelmingly positive, so the quote reflected it. You also criticize quoting reviews in a consensus. The quoting of reviews is used when the review itself reflects the consensus, so it's used in the consensus. Example: The magazine's critical summary quotes The New Yorker: "an imperfect novel that is nonetheless a great one, its inner operations lofting it high above its flaws." Themashup (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I still disagree-- the quote on Footnotes in Gaza is just not encyclopedic. Even if that's how the aggregator described the consensus, there is no need for Wikipedia to repeat all the WP:PEACOCK descriptions like amazing, incredible, superb, etc: those words don't have any information in them, they don't help a reader understand the book any better than if we just said "the reactions were overwhelmingly positive". (Compare with the FA Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, where every quote is connected to a specific aspect of the book.) As for quoting the aggregator's quote of someone else, if the aggregator hasn't bothered to synthesize & paraphrase the reviews we might as well just quote the NYT ourselves directly. Or, even better, summarize the NYT review. Directly reproducing the bombastic praise from book reviews makes an article read like WP:PROMO and is not what a reception section is for. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe I extended ample courtesy as illustrated above. If you believe I was exercising incivility then I of course apologise. I will gladly tweak my verbiage at your suggestion. Though I will of course not accept being told to "just shut up" by a user who seemingly on principle refuses to post edit summaries despite being frequently asked to do so and who from personal experience has proven rather irascible in conversation. But I believe I have exercised restraint while defending my distaste for Themashup's editing campaign. Distaste for content that was added to Wikipedia. Content which I contend holds little encyclopedic value. Not an attack on any one person's character or good faith. I explained this already at Talk:The Years (Ernaux book). I would never want to go in that direction as I know it does not improve the quality and engagement of these discussions.

My response to you would be that while I have an issue with many of the obscure aggregate websites they have added, I'm not sure if WP:RSN would be the route to go because as far as Book Marks is concerned I am not trying to make the case that the source is exactly "unreliable" in the sense of having a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. I do believe, however, that they are inappropriate things to include in articles and wish to build consensus. So I will take your guidance and create an RfC soon. Because I have plenty to say on the matter. Οἶδα (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fires on the Plain (novel)#Requested move 24 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place that members of this project should be interested in:

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels § RfC on book review aggregators

Any input would be appreciated. Οἶδα (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Confessions (Minato novel)#Subject of article and invite participation from other editors. Should the subject of the article be the original novel or its English translation? TSventon (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Two Doctors (short story)#Requested move 17 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Since the Harry Potter action task force seems to be dormant, I was wondering if anyone here had any additional in input on suggestions for improving the "Back to Hogwarts" section of the Harry Potter article, as being discussed here: Talk:Harry Potter#Renewed attempt at revising Back to Hogwarts paragraph. newsjunkie (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sir Ector#Requested move 25 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 31 § Category:Works about fictional serial killers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. User:jc37 has proposed over the course of this discussion that all categories about fictional serial killers (which would include Category:Novels about serial killers and affect the categorization of articles about various serial killer characters in literary works) be eliminated and the topic converted to a list. More opinions on the matter are desired. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello all, I've been expanding coverage of works by romance writer Jilly Cooper and there's an article for her main series the Rutshire Chronicles, which I've added more references to. The issue I'm having is that the series as a whole isn't covered very much, so it's difficult to reflect critique of it without getting a bit WP:SYNTH. Do editors here have advice for a good structure to follow for an article on a series? To what extent can you aggregate information about individual works on an article for a series? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

In my experience, I see two main structures/concepts for series. The first would be something One and Only (book series) where not all of the books really merit standalone articles. In that case the series article becomes the place to put a fairly robust section on each book, like putting several stubs in one place, and the article can end up quite long. The other case, more relevant here, treats the series article more like an organizational/navigational overview. Earthsea is an example here, or canon of Sherlock Holmes. Oh, or Bridgerton (novel series). This approach tends to shorter articles because there’s no need to repeat the “meat” of the individual book articles. Personally, I think a fair bit of aggregation is OK— ie, comparing the bestselling ranks of each book, or giving a unified list of characters. For the Rutshire Chronicles specifically it might make sense to have a section generally about the author’s influence on the “bonkbuster”. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Adam Cuerden has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

More input is sought at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Aubrey–Maturin series. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Historias de un arrabal parisino has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and as an essay for 14 Years. Author is a red link and not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC) P.S. Creator was blocked as a Sockpuppet. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Me Before You#Requested move 21 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

I propose a WikiProject with the working title of Art & Architecture Copyedits.

The proposed WikiProject has two main goals:

1. To copyedit any articles related to Art & Architecture that have the copyedit or clarify tag, and
2. To create a supportive, welcoming space for newcomers. Experienced editors are also very appreciated, especially for the proposal process, but the WikiProject, once created, will mainly be recruiting newcomers.

If you would like to join, please do comment below, and I'll ping you during the proposal to confirm your intent. I will be posting this message on all related WikiProjects. All experience levels appreciated! 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are usually formed by of a group of like-minded editors responding to an active need. I respect the enthusiasm, but you'll be able to do more good – and faster – by joining the Guild of Copyeditors as a copyeditor who focuses on art and architecture articles. Only a few wikiprojects maintain any sort of activity levels, and we know from the GOCE backlog that there is a very, very limited number of copy editors on Wikipedia. You're essentially created a wikiproject doomed to low levels of activity and high set-up costs. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I have similar concerns to ImaginesTigers, but I always love the idea of getting a group effort going-- momentum can really beget momentum once people are all working on the same thing. You might consider organizing a themed copy-editing drive or blitz under the GOCE umbrella. If it's a success, that might introduce you to some like-minded folks for future group efforts. (Personally, I wouldn't join this WikiProject, but I'd join a themed drive/blitz advertised on the Novels wikiproject.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I decided to start a much smaller project instead. We'll see where it goes over time. 22ManzanaBoy (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources to this stub. Then you may re-assess it on its talk page. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added some ref ideas to the Talk for anyone interested – there's some more on TWL — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This has been unsourced for 17 years, but it wasn't tagged. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussions underway at Talk:Sherlock: The Game Is Now that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject: A request to Request to expand and restructure article to reflect the full scope of the attraction (including both escape rooms and the themed bar).

The article is currently rated as Start-class and would benefit from further development. Input from interested editors would be greatly appreciated. 77.107.154.122 (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sherlock: The Game Is Now#Requested move 16 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Notifying WikiProject Novels of the nomination of The Nico di Angelo Adventures for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nico di Angelo Adventures as the article for The Nico di Angelo Adventures is within the scope of WikiProject Novels. Justthefacts (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Dictator (2012 film)#Requested move 9 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)