Knmorgan08

Welcome!

Hello Knmorgan08, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. DBaK (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi. I think you were probably along the right lines here, but please don't change the spelling of parameter names - it doesn't correct them so much as zap them into a parallel universe, so that the parameter just disappears from the template! :( But on the other spellings I strongly suspect you are right, and if I can figure out the technicalities and politics I will tag the article accordingly. Happy Editing! Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have taken the plunge and tagged it as BrE. Whether this will stick remains to be seen - it is a sensitive topic round here! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I chose to stick with the British version because it was used the majority of the time (9 occurrences vs. 2 American), and the breed was developed in/near England. So now the article contains 10 instances of the British "colour" and 1 American "color" due to the parameter name, which I'm not sure is an improvement. Anyway, I'm not sure if there's a standard way for English pages to be written, I was just trying to keep it consistent within the article. Knmorgan08 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what you did was quite right - it's just that the parameter name is a separate problem. I do think it is an improvement, yes - that fact that one thing in an infobox can't be changed isn't much of an issue and will be no surprise to people who have seen a few infoboxes on here. So 10/1 where the 1 is in the infobox is really just, in effect, consistently BrE as I see it. And yes, there is a standard way, or ways but it's nonstraightforward - see WP:ENGVAR. Basically if there's a tie to one place then that pushes it that way. If it started in one variant then that pushes it that way but does not override the business of ties. So if it's an absolutely obviously British topic then it should be spelt "colour" and that is pretty much the end of it. But if someone started a non-geographically tinged article on some other topic then it is supposed to stay in the same spelling, or at least the same spelling as the first version that got to some significant size ... or something. It's often tricky but usually resolved peacefully. If you want some really good stuff try WP:LAME - a nightmare collection of just those sorts of conflicts! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Knmorgan08, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Hi. Probably just as well if you read Wikipedia:Verifiability first, rather than all your articles getting deleted. Deb (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Before creating an article, please review the criteria for having a stand alone article about a subject. It is also advised to use your WP:USERDRAFT space to work on the article until it is ready for "live" space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate why these articles are getting deleted? I am referencing valid ISBN numbers and using existing articles on other novels in the series as referencing for creating new ones. The ones I have created contain no fewer references than the ones I am using as templates. These are well-known, highly regarded novels in the fantasy genre that have cumulatively sold millions of copies. The other novels have referenced the ones I am attempting to create pages for years with dead links. The fact that these pages did not exist before (and, apparently, no longer exist) is quite honestly laughable.

None of them have been deleted yet, just redirected. Just please add the required references. Deb (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going through and updating ISBN numbers now (hopefully that's sufficient to at least let the minimal article exist). However, a number of the book covers were deleted. Do you have a link or recommendation on how to properly upload book covers? I attempted to imitate what other articles have done, but they were still removed.

ISBN numbers have nothing to do with references. No one doubts that these books exist. Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (books) yet? Deb (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have. It seems the guidelines are prohibitively strict and I can think of a large number of novels that currently have articles that meet none of the criteria for notability. That said, the novels I have attempted to create articles for are part of the Malazan Book of the Fallen series, which currently has a main article and, prior to my intervention today, had articles for 12 of the 17 currently published novels. I was attempting to add articles for the remaining articles for the sake of completeness as the existing articles have contained dead links to them for quite some time. The series is apparently notable enough to warrant an article so I assume that each novel in the series would inherit that notability. Is this not the case? If not, how can I establish notability? The Wikipedia:Notability (books) establishes criteria that are sufficient but not necessary, and is rather vague about how one establishes notability outside the enumerated rules of thumb.

If you think they are "too strict" you can begin a discussion on the guideline talk page and attempt to make them "less strict" (good luck with that) but until such time as they are made "less strict" you will need to follow them in their current "strictiness" .

and while you have added 2 links to Forge of Darkness, they are both directly connected to the book and therefore do nothing to establish that the book meets the criteria for a stand alone article, and so it will soon be reconverted to a redirect unless you are able to provide reliably published third party coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Friendly warning

Please understand that, if you keep reverting the redirects without addressing the issue, it could be interpreted as disruptive editing and you could be blocked. What you need is to find something in a reputable publication, eg. a daily newspaper or a commercially-published book, that at least mentions these books. Otherwise, I'm afraid you must just accept that they are not notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article - yet. Deb (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not reverting the redirects without addressing the issue. Thus far I have provided a number of arguments for why I would consider these novels notable, and the articles are repeatedly redirected (or otherwise modified) by you and TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom with zero rebuttal. The series has cumulatively sold millions of copies (see the citation in Malazan Book of the Fallen. The Author, whose only books are the ones in this series, is considered notable enough to contain an article. Twelve of the seventeen novels in this series are considered notable enough to have individual articles, none of which contain any further citations regarding notability than the ones I've created. If you consider it encyclopedic to have articles for 71% of the novels in a popular series, then by all means continue redirecting my articles. The article on notability of books is subjective, vague, and admits that it has criteria that are sufficient but not necessary for being notable, but provides no further guidelines on what additional criteria may be used. Knmorgan08 (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see any evidence that any of the books or either of the authors are notable. The fact that bad articles were created about them doesn't prove that they are even well-known. You've been given a lot of leeway, and time to make good your assertions, and the time has come to put an end to this. Deb (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion in Wikipedia:Notability (books) regarding this. I would appreciate it if we could gather a third opinion on this as you and I clearly disagree. Knmorgan08 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to your query

Well, you've tried, but I would have to say that almost all, or perhaps all, of the references you've found for the individual novels are not from what wikipedia would define as "reliable" sources. In terms of telling what the book is about, how it came to be written, etc, these are probably quite sufficient; however, they can't be used to demonstrate notability. It's not that I really care very much one way or another whether the articles exist, but in the context of the project as a whole, leaving them as they are is a dangerous precedent. Articles for other books that were created when our guidelines were less stringent are not likely to be deleted without discussion, simply because experienced contributors recognise that those guidelines did not apply when they were written, and consequently will take more trouble to help find references for them. The real issue is self-promotion, which happens a lot and which I must deplore. I see that you are not part of any promotional campaign, but you've dug yourself into a bit of a hole by initially refusing to accept that the guidelines apply to you without really understanding what they were and so you've attracted the attention of someone who spends more time looking for infringements of the guidelines than anything else and this is difficult to fight. I would therefore be inclined to accept the redirects for the moment, whilst spending a bit of time investigating whether there are any published sources - books, magazines, whose content may not be available online - where further references might be found. However, this depends how strongly you feel about the matter. In the meantime, I'm all for some of the changes you suggest, but I can't see a practical way of (for example) taking sales figures into account unless those figures come from reputable third parties. Deb (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it took me a little while to really understand that notability must be established to justify an article (something that I took for granted as someone who has been reading these novels for 10+ years). However, I did quite a bit of reading and attempted to do things correctly in my most recent edit iteration and the redirect on Assail without responding to the discussion I'm trying to start on its talk page quite frankly feels like administrative bullying. As I've mentioned in the talk pages, I would consider the citation of Clarkesworld Magazine to be a reputable, independent source that, in my opinion, satisfies the "non-trivial published work". And if it does not, could you explain why this is the case? The other citations I primarily included for supplementary reasons (also discussed in the talk page). I appreciate your guidance on this. Knmorgan08 (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

With regard to sales figures, perhaps a citation from a third-party (e.g. The New York Times) listing the book on their best-seller list would suffice. Although I don't believe they list sales numbers. Knmorgan08 (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Administrative bullying" can presumably only be done by administrators? Deb (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if the user in question is an administrator; Wikipedia does not make the distinction very clear. Thank you for contributing to the discussion on the talk page. Knmorgan08 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You'll find it's useful to know. And you may be surprised what you find... Deb (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Assail Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Assail Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Deadhouse Landing Cover.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Deadhouse Landing Cover.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Book reviews

I've raised this at WP:RSN. The first response is a clear statement that your sources don't meet our criteria and the article should be a redirect. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Given that you commented on the talk page for Dust of Dreams in 2010 I would assume you have some interest in having a higher-quality article for it. The Malazan books have sold millions of copies and are renowned among fantasy enthusiasts, so the notability of the series seems obvious to me even if the citations are underwhelming. The notability of the books has been discussed in other pages as well (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Memories_of_Ice). I'll strive to find higher-quality sources, but in the meantime it seems awfully un-encyclopedic to have articles for 9/10 books in this series. Knmorgan08 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Good work, perserverance pays off. I read most of them years ago. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Assail (novel)

Hi @Knmorgan08: I reviewed this non-article at page review, specifically WP:NPP. This is non-article, with no enclyopeadic content with no analysis or detailed content, and by consensus that makes it a listing article and non-notable and suitable for redirect. Don't revert it. If you want to write, do it in your sandbox until it is completed with sufficient detail to make the definition of what constitutes a wikipedia article. Not this listing. scope_creep^Talk 12:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems this article meets the exact criteria for WP:STUBDEF. My understanding is the article can remain, which would allow other users to more easily add encyclopedic content. The article meets notability requirements and a redirect is not suitable in this instance. I am going to add another edit soon with additional information on the book and keep the stub tag for now. Knmorgan08 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fiends of Nightmaria cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fiends of Nightmaria cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Minorax, the image is used in The Fiends of Nightmaria, and has been since a few minutes after I uploaded it. The file usage section of the image seems to acknowledge this, but is there anything else I need to do to link it properly? Knmorgan08 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Fixed at Special:Diff/1100307405. "The" wasn't added and I couldn't find the article for a minute. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind for the future. Knmorgan08 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Dancer's Lament

@Knmorgan08: Don't put references in the article to a shop, ever. Wikipedia isn't a shop and doesn't advertise. Its promotional and more so it breaks the Wikipedia Terms of Use and can get you blocked. scope_creep^Talk 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Scope creep. You're presumably referring to the references to the publisher's web pages? They seemed like an objective reference for when a book was published and I included them because I noticed a number of other articles do the same. Do you have any recommendations for how I can include this information with a good citation? Knmorgan08 (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

They're promotional. Worldcat possibly. It doesn't need links to a shop page to prove it notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Scope creep. It looks like worldcat.org has the same info, but it does link both to abebooks.com and amazon.com. Is this acceptable before I include it? Knmorgan08 (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No, please don't reference any shops. You have already added an infobox with the publication history that contains the isbn, publisher, various other properties e.g. publication date and series information. It honestly doesn't need much more than that. The infobox is proper encyclopedic info and is ideal for the reader as once opened they can click on it and isbn will take If its multiple books series, and its a summary article, then you create citations, for example in bibliography section, by cite the book, filling the fields, once created, remove the ref tags and your left with a raw citation. They are really handy for WP readers. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. I had assumed the publication dates needed a citation but will exclude it for now. Do you think it would be appropriate to add back the publication history section without the problematic references? Knmorgan08 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course if you can proper references for it. This is a good example of a book article Midnight's Children. It discusses only the book, and how its used and nothing else. If you have any other shops references in your other articles, can you please remove and perhaps put a book review in from a newspaper. The plot section needs expanded. The one line entry for the back of the book is not acceptable as plot either. Readers expect to see a good detailed plot. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I plan to. I appreciate your help with these articles. Knmorgan08 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Knmorgan08. Thank you for creating The God is Not Willing. User:VickKiang, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the creation of this article! IMO, it's borderline notable. We're looking at the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) or the book guideline (WP:NBOOK). With only 2 reviews that IMHO are reliable (see WP:RS), which are Publishers Weekly and Tor.com, IMO this meets WP:GNG narrowly or criteria 1 of WP:NBOOK. It's possible that Grimdark Magazine is RS, but IMHO Fantasy Book Review is not one. It's claimed on Amazon that there are more reviews, including one on Salon, though my WP:BEFORE search didn't find too many. Still, given the borderline notability and maybe non-RS (ref 7) and a lot of non-independent refs (that's okay, as long as the article doesn't exclusively depend on it, but here 3 of the 9 refs are non-independent), IMHO a tagging of notability and non-RS are needed. Thanks and I hope this helps!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve The Fiends of Nightmaria

Hello, Knmorgan08,

Thank you for creating The Fiends of Nightmaria.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for creating this article! I've tagged the notability (see WP:GNG for a general notability guideline and WP:NBOOK for books) as it might be borderline. Publishers Weekly is RS which is just SIGCOV; unsure if Grimdark Magazine is RS, whereas the Critical Dragon looks like a non-RS resembling a self-published source, see WP:RS. Also, because some refs mightn't be RS, I've also tagged an unreliable source tag. I won't mark this reviewed for now because I'm unsure of the reliability of refs, but I'll probably get back to this article later. Many thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Fiends of Nightmaria moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Fiends of Nightmaria, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. More comments: The topic has good merit, and there could be more refs that I didn't find via WP:BEFORE. But currently, there's not much improvements, and it fails notability (see WP:GNG generally, WP:NBOOK for book guidelines). Publishers Weekly is probably the only RS; see here for RSN discussion for Grimdark Magazine. There's doubt on if it is RS that counts towards notability. Other refs don't seem to be RS, so I'm going to draftify this. Many thanks for your creation; if you find more refs, please submit to WP:AfC, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fiends of Nightmaria cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fiends of Nightmaria cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Fiends of Nightmaria

Hello, Knmorgan08. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Fiends of Nightmaria, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Fiends of Nightmaria

Hello, Knmorgan08. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Fiends of Nightmaria".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blood and Bone (novel)

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

This book does not seem notable (see talk). No objection to redirecting this to Malazan Book of the Fallen#Novels_of_the_Malazan_Empire.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blood and Bone Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blood and Bone Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stonewielder Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stonewielder Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)