Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

Active discussions
WikiProject Books (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(14 more...)

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Articles to be merged

(18 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation


CAT:NNEdit

CAT:NN has a huge backlog, including 1300 books, some of which have been waiting almost 12 years. Here's the link: [1]. Please help us get down the books backlog! Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

StearnEdit

I wrote this in a previous article, largely citing it to The Linnean Society: "William T. Stearn (1911–2001) was one of the preeminent British botanists of the 20th century, a president of the Linnean Society and the original drafter of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. He served as Librarian of the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) from 1934 to 1952, apart from the war years, and worked in the 1950s as Botany Librarian at the British Museum. Brent Elliott, another longtime Librarian of the RHS, described the 1992 edition of Stearn's Dictionary of Plant Names for Gardeners as the "most authoritative account of botanical names and their meanings"." Is that enough to meet the last criterion for notability at WP:NBOOK for Stearn's Dictionary? - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Hello @Dank: I don't think this is currently a very strong case for criterion 5 of NBOOK, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable": it doesn't seem to be the case, for example, that "the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" (even if his botanical work is the subject of study). I think criterion 5 more commonly applies to literary works, and figures like Charles Dickens. However, with a bit of digging I suspect you could satisfy criterion 1, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." As long as the praise that you quote from Elliott appeared in an independent source (eg not the preface of the book itself), that's one source right there. And it's common for academic books to be reviewed in academic journals, to provide a second source. Since the book is older some of these reviews may be difficult to find online, but the journals may be digitized. There also might be discussion of the book in biographies of Stearn. Since sources are needed for the article to have verifiable material anyway, finding some kind of coverage is a necessary part of the process anyway. Good luck! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks much. Stearn wrote other books (including Botanical Latin), and I was wondering if there was some criterion that would cover them all at once ... apparently not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Even if they're not all automatically notable enough for their own articles, they'd all be relevant to his article -- you could start writing them up in more depth there, and then if you discovered enough to support notability for an individual work, you could split it into its own article then. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Advice on article contents (From Babel to Dragomans)Edit

I came across this article on a book From Babel to Dragomans, and found it quite odd. It consists of a short lede, followed by a selection of 'quotes from the author' (doesn't say where from), and then a long TOC of the book — and that's it. Starting with the latter, I personally don't see any reason for listing the TOC, but thought I'd better ask for advice before going ahead and deleting it — is there a policy on this, either for or against? As for the quotes, I'm concerned about the lack of references, plus that they presumably are some sort of copyvio, so again I'd like to get rid of them. Alas, this would leave only the lede. (I did think of just PRODding the article for non-notability, but I have actually found several reviews of the book in major newspapers, which I'll be adding as references shortly, so I now think it does satisfy notability; also, the author was quite eminent in the field of Middle East history, which may satisfy points 3 and/or 5 of WP:NBOOK.) Any advice on this would be appreciated, thanks in advance! :) (PS: Can't ask the original editor for comments, as s/he is long since banned.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Regarding the TOC, there is no wikiproject guideline one way or the other. It is your editor discretion which should be guided by the general Wikipedia:Editing policy. Unless it is not consistent with one of those WP:DON'T PRESERVE guidelines, I would leave it. In this case, I think something is better than nothing. However, I think the Quotes section should be removed. Three of the four are quotes from the book (the third one did not come up in the search engine). Quotes are fine for illustrating points on author's writing style or for when getting the precise phrasing is important but should be reserved for more developed articles where context is provided. This is just a list of quotes without context (i.e. it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE). maclean (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, @Maclean25: I'll take out the quotes on copyvio basis, and leave the TOC for now. I would have thought that also falls foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but perhaps not; I'll open a discussion on the talk page and see if any consensus emerges either way. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Books".