Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Late Shift (book)

• The Late Shift (book)

This might be a fun collaborative project to work on, in light of the recent debacle with the controversy of the 2010 Tonight Show host and timeslot conflict. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Another Gospel

Please see Talk:Another_Gospel#RfC:_NPOV_and_article_Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is it normal to involve a long foreign language edition list in book articles, such as seen here? It seems unnecessary to me, and the sentence at the top mentioning Wikipedia within the project seems strange also. I browsed through some of the books on the FA list and didn't see anything similar. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Outrageous Betrayal

Please see Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal#RfC:_Removal_of_words_Is_and_Was. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are Bibliographies covered here?

Hi. I was updating Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), and wanted to check that this wikiproject is the one associated with the articles in Category:Bibliographies by author. There are 4 featured items at Wikipedia:Featured lists#Bibliographies, but only 1 is tagged with this project. If so, we should also probably add links to these places, from this project page. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Bibliography articles to coordinate all these lists. If anyone interested could watchlist it, that would be appreciated. Work will be slow but ongoing. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Rights

I have started a peer review on the article Cyber Rights, which was recently promoted to Good Article quality status. Feel free to provide feedback, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyber Rights/archive1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox book template

The Infobox book template curently doesn't have a parameter suitable for displaying the city in which a book was published, but only the country. On the template's talk page I have suggested that such a parameter be added, and this has led to some discussion on what the most suitable modification would be. It seems to me that the discussion could well benefit from editors who use the template expressing their ideas and preferences on the options suggested.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Horrible Histories (plus spin-offs) help

There are a whole collection of articles found at Category:Horrible Histories. Created by me initially but unable to be upkept due to inexperience in advanced editing and unavailability to edit due to other commitments, this whole category has become a bit of a mess. Some of the larger articles (such as Horrible Histories, Horrible Science and Murderous Maths) are probably reliable enough to become more than just very long lists of books. Horrible Histories (TV series) has recently become like a fansite, and some book series which have become obsolete (such as Dead Famous which is being made obselete by the Horribly Famous series, and The Knowledge (book series) which is now being re-released as Totally (book series)) remain. A lot of the articles are heavily out of date - expecially the Titles in progress sections. I have found many notible sources for a video games based on the series, found at Horrible_Histories_(other_media) and Horrible Histories: Ruthless Romans but I am not quite sure the best way to extract the information out of them to create encyclopaedic material. Pretty much the whole category is in dire need of help. Please could some editors experienced in this type of project help? Thanks. The pages in question (for the moment) are: Horrible Histories, America's Funny But True History, Boring Bible, Dead Famous (series), Foul Football, Horrible Geography, Horrible Histories (TV series), Horrible Histories (other media), Horrible Histories: Ruthless Romans, Horrible Science, Horribly Famous, Killer Puzzles, The Knowledge (book series), Murderous Maths, The Spark Files, Terry Deary's Tales, Time Detectives, Top Ten (book series), Truly Terrible Tales, Twisted Tales (book series), and Wild Lives.--Coin945 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Upon recent experimentation with some articles and a translation program, I am very confused to what other language article have written about the series. For example the Portuguese version classifies the whole "collection" as The Horrible and appears to have books written especially for the Portuguese language, unreleased in English.--Coin945 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have compiled a variety of different sources on different aspects of the Horrible histories franchise. Hopefully i will be able to sift through them to locate the most reliable ones. I have done this so any editors interested in aiding the growth of these articles will have a variety of useful sites at their instant disposable. They are located at: Talk:Horrible_Histories#2009_interview.--Coin945 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One for the Road (Bjørn Christian Tørrissen book)

Could someone review the notability of this book and check if t should be listed at AFD. I originally prodded it a long time ago and just noticed it again on my watchlist. Rettetast (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

articles on books also require expert input

The article on Hannah Arendt's "The Human Condition" makes a mockery of the excellent articles elsewhere at wikipedia on astronomy, mathematics, physics.

Chapter VI of her book is a travesty but it is passed over without comment as to the simple factual errors in that chapter not to mention the grotesque logical fallacies, false dichotomies and other journalistic bombast backing her "fears" and "worries".

She is now viewed as something of a prophet of ecology (itself a scientific notion.)

How do we obtain expert opinion in these matters? I suggest for her, the philosphy department at CMU - experts on philosophy of physics. G. Robert Shiplett 17:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to strike "general audience" clause from WP:NB

I'd like to call attention to this proposal to strike the "general audience" clause from WP:NB, which was made in 2008 after some discussion. The proposal's languished for quite a while, and I'd like to find out what current thoughts are on the topic. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

FYI, 1421: The Year China Discovered the World has been controversially merged into Gavin Menzies. An RfC has been opened on the issue, see Talk:1421: The Year China Discovered the World

70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope (book types)

I have added articles like manuscript, codex or scroll to this project, I feel they are within its scope (as types of books). I thought about WikiProject Literature and Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems but still, Books seem more appropriate to me. I am not sure about articles like Papyrus, Parchment or Paper - what do you think? They should be under some kind of writing project, but they seem broader than just book-related. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Are book arts covered under Wikiproject Books? Because if that is the case, it would be entirely consistent to include papyrus, parchment, and paper. I know of a university library collection that focuses on book arts, and they definitely collect works about paper, etc. I am on a book-arts listserv, too, and paper is frequent subject of discussion; papyrus and parchment discussions are not uncommon. If there has been no discussion yet whether the book arts are part of Project Books, then may I say, I think they should be part of the project, and that articles about paper, parchment, and papyrus would be appropriate. If book arts in general are not to be included, then I think the question about paper, etc, is not so easy to answer. Susfele (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with the project before, but your argument makes sense. I'd say - as a non-member - that since there is no child project to take care of them, this is a parent project that makes most sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Yes, Artist's books are within this projects scope (or at least it is tagged as such). So is Miniature book, and I've just tagged Altered book for inclusion. I agree with all the above. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible list of "core" books

WikiProject Biography, which has a similarly frighteningly huge scope, some time ago went about creating a list of "core" biographies, the biographies which it counted as being the most important. Maybe it might be a useful way to draw attention to some of the most important books and articles by doing the same thing. WikiProject Novels has a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important which might function as a guideline for similar efforts here, if the members were so inclined. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you mean we would cover the non-novel books? I'll list the potential categories we'd need to avoid (or manage) overlap with:

• Category:Top-importance novel articles
• Category:Top-importance Comics articles
• Category:Top-importance Theatre articles
• Category:Top-importance Literature articles
• Category:Top-importance Poetry articles

Hmm, It looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Worklist already contains what we're talking about. I'll poke at those lists soonish (and comment here when I do). -- Quiddity (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

JW books question

Can anyone give their thoughts on the suitability of the JW publications series of articles from the perspective of the Books project with regard to the suitability and notability of the articles' subjects?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Title if later versions

Is there any convention for the name of a book if there are later versions in which it is changed. For example, "Ten Technologies to Fix Energy and Climate" was the title of the second version of a book, while "Ten Technologies to Save the Planet" was the first. Which is it best to use? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with version of a book

The article on Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith uses data from a newer version than the original. Should this be replaced with publisher, ISBN and other data for the first edition? __meco (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Book says "prefer 1st edition" throughout its docs, so I'd say yes, replace the paperback info with the 1st edition info (and note it as such). If the content of the book itself changed in subsequent editions, that would be good content for the article body itself. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding Open Library links to authors and books

I've started a discussion on WP:Village pump (proposals) about adding Open Library links to author and book pages. Edward (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

ISBN

Can anyone disambiguate EAS and EBS at International Standard Book Number? I can't quite figure them out.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Book list

I have put forward a change with Template:Book list that may be of interest to some readers here. d'oh! _talk 13:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also a proposed change for Template talk:Infobox book series being discussed at Template talk:Infobox book series#A few changes -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot about that template. I definitely need a good night sleep. :) d'oh! _talk 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Novels that needs input

If anyone here gets a chance, please weight in at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Category:American_novels, the discussion is kindof stalling and we could use some new thoughts. Sadads (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Which project for Literary Awards?

I see some of the articles about literary awards don't have Project banners and I was wondering if this project was the most appropriate for that. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics permissible in titles of articles on books?

See the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment:Use_of_italics_in_article_titles. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Books by" or "Works by" categories

Without realizing that there already was a "books by author" category, I recently created "works by" categories for several authors (Sherman Alexie, Bharati Mukherjee, Leslie Marmon Silko, Frank Chin, Maxine Hong Kingston, Chitra Bannerjee Divakaruni, Louise Erdrich, Vine Deloria Jr., Jessica Hagedorn, Ha Jin, Jhumpa Lahiri, Lisa See, James Baldwin, Octavia Butler and Samuel Delany). Is it okay for these categories to remain in Category:American books by author or should they be renamed? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Template for expand beyond just plot

Is there a cleanup template for a book indicating the article consists entirely or almost entirely of a plot summary and it should be expanded? RJFJR (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is a stub article then the {{stub}} is the appropriate tag. If it is beyond a stub but with significant gaps, then there is {{all plot}} or other templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Expand and add, but be sure to read+understand the tag before using it (most make reference to a talkpage section which you should create and explain the concern). -maclean (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, I made this suggestion in Meta to open a new project about classifying books, journals and articles, in which you might be interested. Best wishes.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 08:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Obama Diaries

I need some help. Here's a short description of this book (from what I've heard) for those of you who are unfamiliar. The book includes, what are allegedly excerpts from the diaries of several of the staff from the Obama administration including president Obama and his wife. The excerpt are, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, obviously fabricated. The author, the NYT, and USA Today have designated the book as non-fiction either by declaration or through their Best Seller list. I created the article a week or two ago when I first heard about it because it seems like such a contentious topic and WP had no info on the subject. I refrained from designating the book as fiction or non-fiction but people are starting to add a designation and I'd like to address the issue with as many editors as possible before this turns into a gorilla style edit war based solely on political affiliation. I personally believe that WP shouldn't designate either way but should instead discuss the controversy but that's just my opinion. If you would like to discuss this with me, please do so on my talk page or the article's talk page which is probably more appropriate. Thanks for any help you can provide. OlYeller^Talktome 15:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Book collecting

As there is no specific project to do with the issue of obsessed or possessed collecting of books - I am assuming tagging articles and categories related to the book collecting occupation is within the scope of this project SatuSuro 06:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So I am assuming that - if anyone is still here and has a sense of the scope - that 'book collecting', book selling, and book usage - is within the scope of this project SatuSuro 06:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Books

Book-related Article nominated for deletion

The following article was nominated for deletion, The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism. Since the article is part of this WikiProject, please feel free to raise your opinions in the AFD debate. Marokwitz (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-examine an article

Could a member of this wikiproject take a look at Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass for me and update its article class? I believe that it is currently higher than Start because of my improvements, but I know that I am too involved (it being an article I created and have been working on) to class it properly.

Also, I would like to eventually get the article to the state where I can get it up to GA-status. Does anyone have any suggestions on improvements I could make to do that? Silverseren^C 04:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - peer review

• Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

I have put this article up for peer review, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1. Comments on how to further improve the article's quality are welcome there. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Children's literature at peer review

Portal:Children's literature is at portal peer review. Review comments are welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Children's literature/archive1. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Book Selling and Book Collecting work force

Anyone in the slightest interested? SatuSuro 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review - Bacon: A Love Story

• Bacon: A Love Story

I have placed this article up for peer review, now ongoing at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bacon: A Love Story/archive1. Input about the article and suggestions on how to improve its quality on the eventual road to FAC, would be most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Book articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Book articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Need copyeditors for GA review

I am requesting some copyeditors to review Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, which is currently under GA review. I've already hit up WP:GOCE, but, upon advice by the reviewer, i'm letting you guys know as well to see if you can help any, since you'd likely be more familiar with the specific necessities of book articles. Thanks for your help! (Silver seren) 165.91.173.213 (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review for Life at the Bottom

I have just started a peer review for the article Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass, which you can find here. I have started this in order to improve the article so that it will eventually meet FA class. Any help that the members of this Wikiproject could give would be much appreciated. Thanks. Silverseren^C 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Citing book reviews and general style of book articles

I have just made some changes to the article about The Surgeon of Crowthorne to include references to book reviews. I found it awkward within my understanding of Wikipedia conventions, and put comments in the Discussion about this. I homed in on this particular book because I am experimenting with the Wikipedia system by starting from towns and villages where I have lived or visited. This led from Crowthorne to Broadmoor to Minors to The Madman and the Professor (which I have read). In making the changes, I found the http://www.complete-review.com/reviews site which seems a great source for reviews. Is there a place where Wikipedia authors who write book articles can exchange information about resources like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books#Resources. --maclean (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Monstrumologist

The Monstrumologist article needs some real help. The plot "summary" is over 3000 words long and has nearly 150 references within, all to the book itself. I just removed a review from an anonymous Amazon.com reviewer called Just Loves Books from the main text of the article. I haven't read the book, so I'm reluctant to take a weed eater to the plot summary. Anybody here able to? SesanaP (talk)

It appears someone put a lot of work into it, but it is overly long and detailed. It doesn't really summarize the plot;, it re-tells the story. Please do edit and prune the section. maclean (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with maclean, Jeepday (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Letters and Issues

The article Letters and Issues has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No mention of notability no refernces, fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality improvement project - Slaves of Sleep by L. Ron Hubbard

I am going to try to work on a quality improvement project - Slaves of Sleep by L. Ron Hubbard. It'd be nice to see if there is enough source coverage to fully cover the topic for eventual improvement to GA quality. (Right now it'd simply be nice to flesh it out a bit more with additional WP:RS secondary sources.) Help would be appreciated - if you'd like to collaborate on this project and pitch in somehow, please post to Talk:Slaves of Sleep. Thank you for your time! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Little Grunt and the Big Egg

The article Little Grunt and the Big Egg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found a more then 100 published (gBooks) mentions, in unrelated publications. But they all seem to be in lists of kids books, with no special mention of notability. Fails WP:N and WP:V

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

New article: Internet and Technology Law Desk Reference

New article, created, at Internet and Technology Law Desk Reference. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Man They Could Not Hang (book)

The article The Man They Could Not Hang (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found mostly primary sources for this book. The film, the phrase, and the man, seem to have multiple significant mentions, but the book does not seem to meet WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Slice of life and Slice of life story

There is a discussion regarding the merging of Slice of life story into Slice of life. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)