Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Is Infobox bibliography a good thing?

See the discussion at WikiProject Bibliographies. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

File:FalsifiersOfHistoryCover.jpg

File:FalsifiersOfHistoryCover.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Southern cross book 1928.jpg

image:Southern cross book 1928.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User::Steel1943 moving articles without discussion

User:Steel943 has been moving articles without discussion. I reverted him, but instead of talking about matters, he reverted me back, without giving any reason. Someone should talk about this to him. Interested in science (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, so this was the outcome of the "discussion" that was started here. Rather than pointing out the lack of information in the guidelines for moving book titles, this is what I see. I'm going to start a discussion in the next section regarding the moves I made so that a consensus can be reached. This definitely was not the proper way to address this. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• And for the record, I did provide reason; they are in the edit notices I created when performing these moves. Please see the discussion below so that a consensus can be formed regarding such moves/article titles. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Steel1943's claim to have provided reasons for his moves in edit summaries seems to be wrong. I do not see any explanation for the moves. Interested in science (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been resolved on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Should books have full titles, or short titles when necessary?

I was looking through a few applicable guidelines for this (WP:ARTICLETITLE, this WikiProject's main page, etc.) and I ran across an issue: I am unable to find a set guideline regarding article titles for books that have short name and longer names. I recently performed a few moves on some physics-related book titles that I thought would not have been considered controversial, given the fact that I was moving the articles from their short names to their long, full names. To show what I did, here's one example of a move I performed:

Liberation by Oppression to Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry

...the first title not being the full name of the book, and the second title being the full name. Since I could not find a guideline for this, I was doing these moves based on my own common sense which tells me this: A person's name would not be shortened for an article name, so why should a book's article title? With that mindset, I performed these moves. In addition, the titles I moved these articles to are the most common title these books are found when searching for them in search engines. So, unfortunately, since I was unable to find any guidelines to perform these moves, I went by my gut ... which told me that the best article titles are the most technical article titles. If there is no guideline set for this, it should be discussed. If there is, please cite to me the guideline that specifically frowns upon moves such as these, and I will do my best (time willing) to get an admin involved to revert my moves. Either way, I hope that a consensus can be reached that can be put into a guideline of some sort. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Should books have full titles, or short titles when necessary? for better publicity. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Report on the Settlement of the Bareilly District By S M Moens, North-Western Provinces Government 1874.pdf

File:Report on the Settlement of the Bareilly District By S M Moens, North-Western Provinces Government 1874.pdf has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Article request for Lou Gehrig: Pride of the Yankees

I have tried at WP:MLB to no avail. I was hoping that someone might consider creating an article for Lou Gehrig: Pride of the Yankees, which is currently a redirect to the movie.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me on the distinction between the existing article and the proposed one? --Jameboy (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised what page I was on. I'm guessing it's a book. I think my brain just melted down for a second, ignore me. --Jameboy (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Art book

The article Art book has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced dicdef, original research

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

• Dan Savage bibliography

List Peer Review for Dan Savage bibliography

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2. — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate - FA nomination

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is currently a candidate for consideration of Featured Article quality status. The discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you good at image uploading?

In my WP travels, I've noticed that there are quite a few articles on good books which simply lack a cover image: IPCC Summary for Policymakers, Blood and Soil (book), Chernobyl Heart, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Essence of Decision, How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, When Technology Fails, Power, Profit and Protest, Devil's Dust, Kick The Fossil Fuel Habit, and Energy Autonomy. I thought that perhaps that a willing editor (or two) with the expertise might be prepared to pitch in and generously add some images. Thank you for considering this request. -- Johnfos (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Professor Risley and the Imperial Japanese Troupe - Cover.jpg

File:Professor Risley and the Imperial Japanese Troupe - Cover.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on novelist categories

Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Template usage on author bio pages

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates. We need broader opinions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lughath al-Hadith

The article Lughath al-Hadith has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Obvious fail of WP:GNG. The article has been here for seven years with no sources and reliable ones (read: non-sectarian sources) can't be found. The article has only been edited seven times, and three of those times were by bots adjusting dates and stuff. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this book seems to fail the notability test. I am a Muslim, but have never heard of this scholar (which proves little in itself, as I'm no expert on tafsir). A web search turned up only one slighting reference that might be directed at this scholar. There are several other figures with similar names who are clearly not this author. So it's hard to justify keeping the article about the book when even the author and all his works appear to be obscure, at least in the English-speaking world.

Apparently someone started out to document this author — and lost interest! — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 03:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you read Fraktur?

If you read German, you have probably encountered Fraktur or Schwabacher, the German blackletter typefaces that were once commonplace but became obsolete in the 1950s. Even native German speakers often struggle to read it now. (Here's an example from an online book.)

In case you are frakturfähig and want it to be known, I've created this template to add to your userspace: {{User:Alarob/frak}}

Using it will automatically put you in the category "Wikipedians who can read Fraktur." — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon - FA nomination

• Everything Tastes Better with Bacon

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon is currently a candidate for consideration for a 2nd time for Featured Article quality status.

The discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Created new article: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

• Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

I've gone ahead and created a new article for the book, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Collaboration and particularly suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Starship Troopers' FAR

I have nominated Starship Troopers 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. GamerPro64 19:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect template -- R from imprint

I have created a new redirect template ... {{R from imprint}} ... and I wanted to make you aware of this so that you can either take advantage of it or swat it down like a disease-carrying fly :-) . Thank you for your input on this template, the category for which I've subsumed under Category:Redirects from trade names ← which I originally had as a subcat of Category:Redirects from alternative names, but nixed this based on the subsumption mentioned. The trade names category was originally created solely for drugs, but it is a suitable as a parent for the imprints category as well now. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

The article about the book When God Writes Your Love Story is a current featured article candidate. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide at the discussion would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Should Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention be tagged as LGBT-related?

Please see Talk:Malcolm_X:_A_Life_of_Reinvention#LGBT Tag WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Project page problem

Why does the "Help & Tools" link bring me to WP:WikiProject Canada? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the links. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox book: streamlining publication details

Changes to streamline the way Infobox book displays the date of publication and publisher from multiple fields into one (using a standardised format) and to remove the "(s)" in "Author(s)" etc. in line with other infoboxes have been suggested. Please read and give your opinion there. --xensyria^T 17:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Cookbook, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Requested book article: Book Lovers Day

Hello! This is just a friendly note to let you know that there is a request for an article on Book Lovers Day listed here and there are some sources to get you started. I'd create the article myself, but I don't know enough about the notability requirements for holidays - so I thought I would leave it here, since it's book-related! --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 19:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mixed to positive / Mixed to negative

Hey all, is there an official stance on the use of "Mixed to positive" and "Mixed to negative" to describe critical reaction to books? Either of these phrases sound absurdly redundant, as "mixed" implies both positive and negative reactions. I see these phrases all over Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no guideline on these uses, just common sense. This line is commonly seen in the intro section which is supposed to summarize the body of the article. A quick and easy way to summarize more detailed reviews to this "mixed" reaction. maclean (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply! I broached this subject on three Wikiprojects because it's such a common "go to phrase" that I feel it needs to be addressed one way or another. There's a lively discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, which is outside the control of Wikiproject Books, but that is discussing the theoretical obstacles of this sort of phrasing. My common sense says that anything phrased "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative" should be cut down to "mixed" at least, or removed entirely at best. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bonnie Prince Charlie: A Tale of Fontenoy and Culloden

Why is there all of a sudden such a fuss about this article? The novel was written by an author who wasn't more "obscure" than Karl May or Emilio Salgari and the novel might be appropriate to serve as an example on how he worked. So far the article had more readers than many other articles on books. The fact that the copyright is expired made it also possible to provide lengthy quotes as references. So what's the problem? Nordhorner II (talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 22:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf

file:Python 3.3.2 reference document.pdf has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources

Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries

Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians

Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources

Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

Introduce yourself  :-)

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page discussion - Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

I've nominated Freedom for the Thought That We Hate for Main Page discussion.

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#September_25. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

WE Title page 1927.jpg

image:WE Title page 1927.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

LiturgicalBookCase.jpg

File:LiturgicalBookCase.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bolding subtitles

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Bolding_subtitles, whether book and journal subtitles should be bolded in the lead or not. More opinions are welcome. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Publishers

Do you welcome tagging all articles on book publishers, both people such as Ian Ballantine and companies or imprints such as Bantam Books? (The latter is now tagged. The main page excepts "people, such as authors" and does not mention the book business.)

By the way, this talk page looks like 60 days may be a better archive rate. --P64 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

• Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

I've created the new article about the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, which discusses the subject of targeted killing.

Further suggestions for research and additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested page move of 1957 in literature

Interested parties should have a look at this move request Talk:1957_in_literature#Requested_move, which, if successful, would have a knock-on effect on all Year in Literature articles. Deb (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Prod: Business IT Fusion

Can someone look at Business IT Fusion and see if it might be salvaged? I've proposed deletion based upon the article history and lack of notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Unintelligible plot summary at Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging

I ran across this YA book in an indirect way, and the plot summary is so inside-jokey or slangy it's unintelligible. Can someone familiar render the summary in proper phrasing? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 21st century, Matthew. Or, maybe YAs don't want you to understand what they're saying. In any event, it was made into a movie. Read the movie's plot summary. GroveGuy (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Stolen Childhood

The requested move is still ongoing, so comment there while it's there. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox book series

Editors involved in this project may be interested in a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book series#"Publisher" Wikilinked?. In short: Should the parameter "Publisher" be wikilinked in the template? Cnilep (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Grameen Social Business Model for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article about the book, Grameen Social Business Model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grameen Social Business Model 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI re discussion re categorization of cult-related books

FYI re discussion re categorization of cult-related books: See Category talk:Cult-related books#Description of category. 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Titles, original and other

Article "Course of theoretical physics" (about the famous Landau-Lifshitz 10-volume work): Perhaps the Russian original title should be included (link in the overview is from the word "Russian" and leads to the general article on Russian language -- there is even a similarly meaningless link from the word "English" !). -- Given the renown of J.S. Bell, it would seem a good idea to note he played a major role in the English translation.Svato Schutzner (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck peer review, again

1. Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Tofler critics

It is most unfortunate that, 50 years later, that some would be critics are taking potshots at Tofler. He was wrong in predicting how we would acclimate (or not) to the ever-increasing growth and speed of technology and information. But, give him credit. His prediction that everything would change and change with increasing rapidity was brilliant, for the time. It is common knowledge and we all see it every hour of every day. But few, if any, saw what he was describing in 1970. I have never read a book that was proven, by history, to be so insightful.

When I first read it, I believed it to be a provocative and brilliant academic exercise. But, I saw it as an abstract concept. It was not until years later that I could have benefited from the book, far more, if I had seen it as affecting me, everything, and everyone; every minute of every day.

It is a force, like gravity. One must adapt and minimize it's impact on whatever they are doing.24.206.87.235 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Joe Seeber, Waco Texas.

Dan Savage bibliography for FLC

1. Dan Savage bibliography
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

I've gone ahead and nominated Dan Savage bibliography for WP:FLC consideration, the discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Gods' Man at FAC

I've nominated Lynd Ward's wordless novel Gods' Man as a Featured Article Candidate, and would appreciate anyone willing to donate their time to review the article. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God Peer Review request

The article for Will Eisner's graphic novel A Contract with God has recently become a Good Article. I'm planning on nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate and would appreciate any feedback to help it get there. The Peer Review is here, so please stop by! Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing code box for Infobox

The code box for the Infobox template is making the project page unmanageably wide and unreadable. Since the section already links to the template, all the parameters and what they mean are instantly available. I'm removing the code box here. What are links for, anyway? :-) Gorthian (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Small and Alternative Presses

I’m interested in starting an article for small presses and alternative literature and would like feeback. The Project would include the strategic growth of articles from this list Category:Small press publishing companies as well as expanding the articles by some of the notable authors that such presses include. Please notify me if you are interested! OR drohowa (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Offhand that seems to me a WP Books and WP Business task force. --with their permission. As I understand, a task force implies a one-line addition to a WikiProject's talk page banner. --P64 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Task force may be implemented in at least two ways represented by the WP:Novels task forces Harry Potter and Narnia. For some discussion see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Covers the Franchise. --P64 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children

• Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth

I've recently gone ahead and created an article about the book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Help with suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NCBOOKS

Relisted move at Talk:The Satanist (Dennis Wheatley novel) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article

I've nominated Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for Featured Article candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Literature at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates

This is a message to inform you that Portal:Literature (promoted to Featured Portal in 2006, delisted in mid-2013) is currently being considered for relisting as a Featured Portal at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates#Portal:Literature. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to offer your support or voice your opposition, I encourage you to do so there. The FPO criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Thank you, Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency

I've created a new article about the Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Created new article = Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

• Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

I've created a new article on the book, Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

— Cirt (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties promoted to Featured Article

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties was promoted to Featured Article quality.

Thank you very much to all who helped with this successful quality improvement project related to freedom of speech and censorship,

— Cirt (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

New article = Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

• Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

— Cirt (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A Contract with God Featured Article Candidate

I've put the article for Will Eisner's 1978 graphic novel A Contract with God up as a Featured Article Candidate. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Contract with God/archive1. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger of newly- and/or re-created book articles by Sankar (film director) to author's article

See Talk:Sankar (film director)#Merge in Sankar's non-notable works into Sankar (film director). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Silent Spring peer review

• Wikipedia:Peer_review/Silent_Spring/archive1

Important book in the history of environmental regulations, history of pesticide usage, and environmentalism. Please offer your thoughts. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

should infobox contain the month as well as the year something was published?

Was there any debate for removing the month, and putting the year of publication on the same line as the publishing company's name? Since when do any infoboxes for any type of article have more than one thing on a line? What is the point of doing this? Many books list not just the month and year, but also the specific day if its available, such as The Hobbit. I reverted someone for doing this [1] but they posted on my talk page disagreeing with me. So I figured I'd come here to the proper Wikiproject and start a discussion. The infoboxes for books, comics, manga, films, television shows, and video games, always list the month and even day if it is available. I see no reason to change that. Dream Focus 00:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dream Focus, if you had been paying attention, you'd see that it's now common for the infoboxes of articles about books to list the year of publication and the publisher on the same line. Many articles have been modified that way; see here, for instance. The point of it, I believe, is that it's a simple and effective way of conveying this information. You could equally ask what the point is of having the information on separate fields. There doesn't appear to be any. I'm not sure what agreement if any has been reached about the month and day of publication, but I personally see it as unnecessary information. The infobox is after all meant to be a summary of basic information only. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Its common for you and one other person to do this in places. Most articles have not had that changed, nor do I see any discussion anywhere about doing this. Dream Focus 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't even bothered to look, how would you know what is or isn't common? Why not just admit that you don't really know what you're talking about? The rational thing you could do is to ask other, more experienced editors their views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I did look. The first book I thought of was the Hobbit, and I pointed out above it had the month and day listed as well as the year. I checked around to other things, and its the same thing for books, comics, manga, video games, films, television shows, and newspapers. And I have been editing Wikipedia for 7 years, 8 months and 16 days now. I have also created a number of book articles over the years. So I don't think anyone is more experienced than me, I not new at this. I posted here to see what others had to say. Dream Focus 14:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• The originally discussion had 5 people at Template_talk:Infobox_book/Archive_6#Next_wishes talking, and not all of them agreed to change things this way, some against it, as they later stated when it came up again with more people participating at Template_talk:Infobox_book#Data_granularity. Just above that section of discussion was the section Template_talk:Infobox_book/Archive_7#The_new_.22published.22_parameter.2C_a_bad_idea.3F which also mentioned it was a bad idea, and the one who made the changes to the code did agree. So you don't have any actual consensus for this change. The discussion should be continued over there though. Dream Focus 14:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at MoS concerning peacock language

Hi there! This is a heads-up that I have opened up a discussion among the community about the use of language when summarising an entertainment product's critical reception. It's a discussion I feel we need to have and is relevant to multiple WikiProjects, including this one, so I am looking for input from other editors. Here is the discussion. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox book request for comment

In August last year, all publication data in {{infobox book}} was merged into one new |published= parameter. Work began on migrating existing uses to the new format, until questions were raised about the effect this had on data granularity.

Any input and suggestions on a proposed fix, which keeps the new one-line per edition formatting while providing full data granularity would be much appreciated (centralised discussion here). Thanks. ‑‑xensyria^T 23:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boys_are_stupid,_throw_rocks_at_them!_controversy. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sebastián de Covarrubias and the Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española

I have proposed merging Sebastián de Covarrubias, a biography, to Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española, his major book. Discussion is at Talk:Tesoro de la lengua castellana o española. Cnilep (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Discovery, Purchase, and Settlement, of Kentucke

I've just added a comment at /Non-fiction article#The Discovery, Purchase, and Settlement, of Kentucke, but I see that no one has commented on that sub-page since 2010. Perhaps I should move my comment here? Cnilep (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is The Discontinuity Guide Notable?

A question I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Is The Discontinuity Guide Notable? but think might be better asked here.

Is The Discontinuity Guide Notable? It appears to pass the threshold criteria but I'm struggling to find any evidence for it passing any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOK. I don't have any experience in the notability of books so thought I'd ask before sending it to WP:AfD. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD'd (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Discontinuity_Guide) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Books by publisher deletion test case

Category:Chapman & Hall books, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. GrahamHardy (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Course assignment on historical travelogues upcoming

Eberhard Isbrand Ides (1710). Dreyjaehrige Reise nach China - Title page

Hi everyone! From 7 May until early June 2014, nine students from Maastricht University will write (mostly) new Wikipedia articles about historical travelogues from the 17th-19th Century and will improve the Wikipedia articles about their authors (such as Joachim Heinrich Campe, Arnoldus Montanus, Isaac Titsingh and Johan Nieuhof). The course page includes the list of authors and books that will be covered.

I am supervising this course as a Wikipedian, with help from Romaine. The books were all pretty influential and therefore probably notable enough to merit their own article. Each student must also, at the same time, write a (classical) bachelor thesis about one book, so they'll have their academic sources ready. The students have received a Wikipedia instructions and are aware of our Five Pillars and general guidelines. And I will carefully track all edits made by the students.

Of course, all feedback is extremely welcome, either on the students' work or on this course in general. Feel free to contact me on my talk page with any questions or remarks! Spinster (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Children's literature for Featured Portal candidacy

1. Portal:Children's literature
2. Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Children's literature

I've nominated Portal:Children's literature to be considered for Featured Portal quality.

This was a joint quality improvement collaboration between myself and User:Wadewitz.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Children's literature.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Book Reliability

Hello, I was wondering if someone over on this talk page could assist me in determining the reliability of these books. I am curious because I am holding a discussion over on WP: Albums and a handful of users expressed confusion over the reliability of these works in regards to "fact-checking and accuracy". They are:

• Women Drummers: A History from Rock and Jazz to Blues and Country written by percussionist and author Angela Smith and published through Scarecrow Press, April 10, 2014.
• Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music - Written by American folklorist, historian, record producer W.K. McNeil and published through Routledge, Oct 18, 2013.
• Music of the World War II Era - Written by professors William H. Young and Nancy K. Young and published through Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008.

--Soul Crusher (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Books At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions for bibliographies

I have proposed naming conventions for bibliographies here. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Scope

Section 1 doesn't direct articles on book publishers elsewhere, nor any other book businesses, as it does for book writers, characters, etc. But I doubt that the most frequently visited article on a book publisher is this projects #97. John Wiley & Sons, so I guess that publisher articles should not routinely be "directed" here.

P.S. I thought I would skim the list of good articles claimed by or directed to this project. I poked around and found the list of most-frequently visited articles to skim, only because the links in WP BOOKS assessment table, column two, are all dead for me now (404 Not Found). Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Assessment#Request an assessment.

--P64 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles

Please write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles. Having these articles can help Wikipedians determine the trustworthiness and aspects of the books they use as sources.

My instructions:

• 1. Search a university database like this: http://info.lib.uh.edu (After entering the book's title, go to the left pane and select "reviews"). If you see at least two book reviews, you know the book is notable as per WP:GNG - You can also get a 14 day trial to Booklist and search for reviews there.
• 2. If you see book reviews, try using Google to see if they are publicly available. If not, use WP:RX to obtain personal copies.
• 3. Write your article using the book reviews as sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:John Carter has some great suggestions: "If you really want to try this your best bet would be to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. I might also suggest creating some articles like Bibliography of Antarctica and some others I and others have created. But there seems to me to be rather little interest in such efforts here. Perhaps(?) a better idea for some topics might be to create pages like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles for good reference books on specific topics, as recent specialist reference sources often tend to be good indicators of academic opinions. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)" (from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#An_idea_for_determining_reliable_sources:_write_Wikipedia_articles_about_books_used_as_sources_by_Wikipedia_articles) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability for The Astor Orphan by Alexandra Aldrich

Hello. I have just finished reading The Astor Orphan by Alexandra Aldrich. It is the memoir of an Astor descendant. I may be interested in writing an article about it, but how would I know if it is notable enough first? If I spend time on it, I don't want it to be deleted. Is there a benchmark for article creations in terms of sales or other forms of notability please? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Here's how:

• 1. Search a university database like this: http://info.lib.uh.edu (After entering the book's title, go to the left pane and select "reviews"). If you see at least two book reviews, you know the book is notable as per WP:GNG - You can also get a 14 day trial to Booklist and search for reviews there.
• 2. If you see book reviews, try using Google to see if they are publicly available. If not, use WP:RX to obtain personal copies.
• 3. Write your article using the book reviews as sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. So just to be clear, do I just need two book reviews? That seems like a low benchmark, so I just want to make sure (for this book and other ones in future) if that would work. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access

Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Book cover (fair use) for Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution

Hello. Would someone please add a fair use cover of Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with a discussion?

Hi! I'm currently involved with a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carver Trilogy. Long story short, the AfD is for a book trilogy that came out in the 90s. I found coverage for the individual books by way of reviews and I've also found enough to suggest that there are more reviews out there that have never made it onto the Internet. (IE, the review pages on Amazon show Houston Post and Washington Post reviews, among other places.) There is one person on the page that is arguing (if I'm understanding him correctly) that we should not count individual reviews towards notability for the series as a whole and that in order for the series to have overall notability, the coverage should be about the series as a whole. I don't agree with that opinion and I think that it's extremely counterproductive to say that we can't use individual reviews towards notability for a series. I know that we're not all inclusive here, but that's way too exclusive and would pretty much decimate a large portion of articles on here because we have multiple series that have reviews in RS for individual books but not a lot of coverage for the series as a whole. I think that's being a little too inclusive and would be overall detrimental to Wikipedia. I've seen multiple AfDs close with "redirect to series" when there are no individual book pages and sometimes even when I've created a very quick page for the series as a whole. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Is for Nightmares is an example of one such precedent where we've had enough coverage for a series page but not for individual book pages. I'm mostly just coming on here to get some feedback on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Series

Should the titles of articles about book series be italicised? Ollieinc (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Audiobook infobox

Is there a specific infobox for audiobooks? If not, should I add a narrator parameter to Template:Infobox book? Ollieinc (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (book)

Page move has been requested; join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archive releases 2.4 million images scanned from pre-1923 books

The Internet Archive has just released 2.4 million images to Flickr, extracted from scanned pre-1923 books.

I have started a project on Commons to explore and understand the set, and start uploading relevant batches, at

c:Commons:Internet Archive/Book Images collection

with the initial thought of proceeding along the lines of the existing

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection

But it could use some advice at this, the blank page stage, from people who know about book resources as they exist already across the Wikis.

For example, how much is there already from the IA that's been uploaded to Commons or Wikisource or Wikidata ? And how is it being held / described ? Are there already quite good automated approaches for extracting metadata from the IA and/or Open Library ?

Initially, I've been thinking to use quite a simple link-back template on book-image category pages, along the lines of eg c:Template:BL1million bookcat as used at the top of this category; but I'd welcome advice on this.

The advantage of such a simple template is that it is easy for users to apply by hand, with very little input being required, until such a time as templates can be created that can automatically draw all relevant information from Wikidata (which probably requires Phase 3 on Commons). But if people think the project should be being more ambitious, and especially if there are already any easy ways to draw the relevant data automatically from IA to fill out more advanced templates with minimum effort, that would be very valuable to know.

Please do join in, and sign up on the Commons page now if you would be interested. Jheald (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

AFD for First Book of Napoleon

Could I ask for some additional eyes at WP:Articles for deletion/The First Book of Napoleon. One of the main issues that appears to be arising is the application of WP:GNG/WP:NBOOKS to a non-contemporary book. In the off chance that some in this wikiproject may have previous experience with discussions like this, any comments would be appreciated. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft notability guideline

I would appreciate assistance and feedback on WP:PUBLISHER. James500 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles in need of Gutenberg, LibriVox etc.. external link author templates

A new tool announcement. External Link Discovery. This tool makes finding and adding External Link author templates faster. -- GreenC 20:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Born to Run

It seems we have two articles on Born to Run. One exists at Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen and the other at Christopher_McDougall#Born_to_Run. Born to Run (book) redirects to that section and is listed at the disambig page for Born to Run. A merge definitely needs to occur (the two articles have different details/content as a simple redirect won't do), but which should be merged to which? (I'm not around on here much these days, so someone else should perform the merge...I just wanted this brought to attention/action). only (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether to merge the book page into the author page, which would probably be kept. Does the book page deserve to be kept? Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The book has been influential and often discussed in other works. No problem finding many reliable sources. It should be kept as a standalone article with the author's section a summary of the "main article". -- GreenC 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub cat proposal for stories & collections

I've proposed some new stub cats over at Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2014/September#Century stubs for short stories and short story collections. Please let me know if these stubs would be useful. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly

Discussion still ongoing; join in before it closes. --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gospel Book

Hey, the article Gospel Book has been nominated for deletion. I think it doesn't really run a risk of being deleted, but a quick glance shows that it's unsourced and probably needs quite a bit of copyediting to bring it into shape. Anyone interested in saving the article, please feel free to address the issue. I'll try to do something myself, but am for the moment to busy IRL. Cheers, Yakikaki (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)