Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels

More opinions needed at Requested move Nineteen Eighty-Four → 1984

It would be really helpful to get more opinions here. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk)

A new series of Australian crime novels by PJ barker.Murder out west

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)

Requested move at Talk:Justine (de Sade novel)#Requested move 14 June 2024

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)

Help with a merge?

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)

Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

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)

Proposed deletion of Justinian (novel)

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)

Ubik: ISBN and OCLC

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)

Looking for one book

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)

WP:DOAWK Notability

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)

Unencyclopedic review aggregation

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 individuals 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)