Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(8 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

(4 more...)

Featured article reviews

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(13 more...)

AfD discussion

[edit]

This afd discussion about The Editors (novel) may be of interest to editors participating in this project. Just putting it here because I don't know if any of the contributors to the discussion are members of the project. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Jackrabbit Factor

[edit]
Notice

The article The Jackrabbit Factor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources. Run of the mill, self-published self-help book. Author not notable. Not enough information to merge or redirect anywhere.

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) 14:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language/nationality categories

[edit]

In most categorization schemes for books, the nationality categories are nested within the language categories, which has always felt very weird. I've seen people remove the language categories as it's already nested in a nationality subcategory, which I feel is actually a loss of information. A book can be French, and first published in English, or it can be Swiss and published in German, French, Italian, etc. I feel like initial language of publication is defining apart from nation. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I share the sense that language and nationality are only correlated, not logically nested. Just consider Canada and French/English. A pure and precise ontology would probably have language and nation categories existing in parallel, at equal placement in the hierarchy. But I’m not sure how much appetite there is to essentially double-tag all works, as eg both “French books” and “books in French”. I don’t consider myself well informed about the best way to organize Wikipedia category infrastructure. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an awkward situation. With countries like France specifically it may pose an issue - but with ones like Switzerland or Canada it is the reverse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely one of my current bugbears. It's especially frustrating in the novels section, which seems to have created a system where certain non-English language books (see every entry in Category:Hong Kong novels) are in the English-langauge categories, because they were published by authors who came from a country which speaks English as an official language. Additionally, many historical European books, no matter what country they were from, would have been published in French or Latin. Our current categorization system accidentally implies that many of these books were written in modern European languages, because we expect our country-level categories to serve this dual purpose. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus/PW review dates

[edit]

Hi, I've been trying to source some unreferenced book articles, and two common resources I cite are Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews, both of which have some weird quirk with their review dates.

For PW, the review date on their website and when it actually appears in their magazine is different. For example, [1] shows the book reviewed on December 2, 1996, but ProQuest [2] shows the review appearing in the October 14, 1996 issue, before the date the book was supposedly reviewed.

For Kirkus, they give both the date the review was posted online, and the date the review was originally published, presumably in print. Which should be used? Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a major problem, but I just find it a bit confusing and annoying choosing which one to use. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would use the published date in both cases, but I'm not really sure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology#Open discussion about categorizing Hubbard's Scientology books that members of this project might find interesting. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books&oldid=1267255574"