Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Lists

Once an article has been created for a novel, it can be entered into a number of lists to allow easier browsing for viewers. All novels should be included in the Lists of novels. Each novel can be included in lists based on the alphabet, year, language, genre, country, etc. that a novel can be included in.

Just curious, I know that Lists of books exists, but are the novel lists currently under construction? Is that why these are redlinked? María (habla conmigo) 17:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Something to debate :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cover caption

First edition should be the "normal" cover to use - if no other reason is available it is the literary world and history's edition of note. Thus the associated cover would the one to go for. I do take the point that we should not be hostage to that notion, however the reasons to use other covers will be few. Perhaps varying by genre. What I tend to see in vast numbers is people using for old titles, recent covers that have no clear merit above any other edition. In such situations the "first edition" should be used. Also as an example the "cover caption" text you replaced my edit with doesn't quite "hack it". I would be uncomfortable if that was used as it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want to encourage mindlessness and instructions such as "always use first edition" or "use first edition" tends to do that. An instruction such as "use the most historically significant edition" means that the editors actually have to stop and think about what they are doing. Far too many infoboxes are just slapped onto articles for no real purpose and filled up with false and misleading information. The "first edition" covers are part of that. I don't want to have a big debate about it, so I'm not going to post and repost and repost and revert and revert, etc. But please do think about how such instructions appear and what their general outcome will tend to be. Awadewit Talk 08:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with the tenor of what you say, I don't think "first edition" by default is quite so much of a problem as you appear to think. I would say that the "recent edition" by default is far more of a problem that really exists. I'm not wedded to the wording as currently in the "image_caption" line - but as an example line I could easily see plenty of editors just putting in the text as you had it. Another small point the caption doesn't need to reherse the novel title, and should aim to give a terse discription of the edition chosen and if possible an reason (again terse). It might be we can think of a better line, but I can't at present. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

In light of the current discussions on the use of {{spoiler}}-warnings in articles, I want to make sure that the current wording in this wikiproject's guideline on the issue really is as agreed upon here. It currently reads:

"Be sure to include a {{spoiler}} template, which will warn readers of the article not to proceed if they do not want the novel "spoiled" for them."

This is a rather strong statement ("Be sure") and good arguments have been made for not using spoiler warnings, especially in articles on classical works of literature or when the section header is "Plot" or "Synopsis" or otherwise makes it very clear that the plot is being discussed and revealed in that section. If the agreed upon style guideline for this wikiproject indeed is as it currently reads on this issue, then fine. More power to the wikiprojects, I say. And in the same way that WikiProject Opera banned the tag from their articles, I'm fine with this Wikiproject making up their own mind about the issue. But I just want to make sure that people indeed should "Be sure to include a spoiler template" if they want to follow WikiProject Novels agreed upon style guideline. Shanes 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - the line we tend to take here is that "Plot introductions" are for spoiler free discussion of the plot, i.e. what could not be seen as adversely affecting anyone's enjoyment of the novel and also givin a taster so someone has an idea of the "type" of story to expect. The "Plot summary" is for a more exentended treatment of the plot and is "highly" likely to cause "spoiling" for someone about to read the novel for the first time. There are clear differences here. What is encyclopedic is a moot point, but with all discussions of this type simple acknowledgment that people read them (other encyclopedias) and wikipedia for different purposes and we should aim to cater for as many as possible, with a bias toward serious study and properly referencing all we do. I trust that helps. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary length

Is there a recommended limit on the size of a plot summary? Gimmetrow 02:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There probably should be - however I would not want anything too restrictive. A discouragement to being too detailed or overblown might be enough. The thing is different importance of novel requires different treatments, different genres require different treatments. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. WP:MOSFILMS#Plot recommends film plot summaries be 400-700 words, but allows for more in some cases. Gimmetrow 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me add it yourself if you could. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The majority of articles about Novels which have reached "Featured Article" status have summary lengths of 9+ paragraphs. Shouldn't the guidelines here be altered to reflect that? --19:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Davémon
The disconnect between the example set by Featured Articles and the guidelines given here was noticed over at Talk:The Hobbit#Overhaul. Plot summary paragraph counts for some currently featured novels: The Old Man and the Sea (6ish), Uncle Tom's Cabin (9), Starship Troopers (9), The Well of Loneliness (5). The plot summary in the FA for Make Way for Ducklings, a children's picture book, is three paragraphs.
Also, Bleak House is cited as a good example of length, but I don't see a clear plot summary section in that article. --Mrwojo 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Slightly unusual example that given the structure of the piece the plot elements are contained in the character descriptions. The probably some be some plot overview, but the novel itself should give some idea of if the needs for such a section. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that WP:Plot summaries#Length of plot summaries currently recommends 300-500 words. Just for comparison, a few articles on novels when promoted to featured status: Uncle Tom's Cabin - 925 words, The Well of Loneliness - 600 words, Starship Troopers - 850 words, Oroonoko - 600 words, To Kill a Mockingbird - 550 words, The Country Wife - 820 words, The General in His Labyrinth - 825 words. (Starship Troopers expanded after it was promoted.) These books are studied in academia and have a body of criticism, so it might be argued they need a longer plot summary for the description of that criticism to make sense. I think the WP:FILMPLOT guideline fits the existing practice for novels fairly well: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot." Gimmetrow 21:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox necessity

On Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Infobox we're told that the infobox "is strictly optional". Yet on some novel pages (such as Talk:Splendeurs_et_misères_des_courtisanes, where I'm working as part of WikProj Balzac, the text says "This article needs an infobox template!" (With an exclamation point, no less.) Which page has the correct sense of urgency? -- Scartol 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this first is a general statement for "all" types of article so what it is saying is, 'across all types of article an infobox is not always important'. The Novels and books related guidelines are saying that there is a case for infobox in most cases. In other words 'the level of common information that can be formally collected together is such that an infobox is desirable'. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missread the first reference, so change that first line it wasn't really true for "Novels" guidelines. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reception before film/TV adaptations?

In the list of components for the body of novel pages, a section on reception is indicated after film/TV adaptations. But I wonder if this shouldn't be reversed? (In this reader's mind, the immediate thought is that reception of the film/TV version is being addressed.) -- Scartol 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree I will change this straightaway. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

French novel titles?

I'd really like to get a ruling on how to title pages about novels originally written in foreign languages. A quick glance at Category:French novels reveals that almost exactly half of them are in French and the other half are in English. I don't want to have to spend time renaming the pages in La Comédie Humaine if I can get it right the first time through. Thanks. -- Scartol · Talk 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is one of those areas that isn't too clear even from the wiki's guidelines. The way I understand the essence of what is said is based on one overriding observation: this is an English wikipedia. Ok, so that means is that most names should be in English, however two basic provisos seem to apply. Firstly, where the title is so well known in the Original language that it is best to use that. And, Secondly, if the title is so new / obscure that it hasn't appeared in English yet it "may" then appear in the Original language. Now a complications appear when the translation of the novel (etc) is published in a number of variants. No clear guidance seems to have been given here, but I tend to go for the most widely used or respected translation's title. Now in practice everybody seem to do what they like so some order to this is long overdue. More thoughts? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm very confused about all of this, and I'd really like to work on organizing the Balzac pages – but I feel like this naming business needs sorting out first. (Of course, it's clear that there's no clear rule for me to follow, so I suppose I'll end up trusting my gut in some shape or fashion. What I really need is someone to tell me: Just use the French titles! Heh.)
I've very rarely seen the title Father Goriot, even in English discussions/texts. It's almost always Pere Goriot. WikiProject France's guideline seems to back up the idea that we should use French titles. But then WP:UE says to use the most common English translation. Argh! Well, it can all be aided and repaired later with redirects, so I'm going to use French.
If anyone wants to stop me, do it quickly before I get in too deep! – Scartol • Tok 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would use French only when there is no English translation or where the French title is better known in English. It would be nice to have the reasons for the choice clearly given in the article. Just a single phrase that discusses the title would do. do bear in mind that this "is" the English wikipedia and you are addressing English speakers etc. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
We have had this discussion before. I think go with the name that is actually used most often. I don't mean used most often by English speakers, but the name used most often counting all discussions. For example, if a French work had an English translation whose name was used in English discussions, but the majority of the discussion regarding that book had been in French and used the French title, then IMO we should use the French title. Loom91 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, that is basically another perspective on the same view. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary vs. WP:NOR

I don't understand how plot summaries (which are clearly accepted) interact with WP:NOR (which is a generally accepted policy). It seems to me that a priori, Wikipedia ought not to provide a plot summary unless the summary itself can be sourced: otherwise it is original synthesis, which is specifically forbidden by WP:NOR. (I've already looked at Talk:The Hobbit#Overhaul, which illustrates the WP:NOR concern rather well. A comprehensive ruling is probably too much to expect, but how about some guidelines? TIA. --John Cowan 23:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation. However have a think about this. How are you to write a Plot Summary that is based on another parties research when you are unable to quote all of it. i.e. copyright infringement issues. Even if you selectively quote then the result will likely become a difficult blend of original and and secondary research. I don't beleive their is an easy answer to this one. Lie all simple statements like WP:NOR the world is never that straightforward. What do others think? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the conclusion we draw from this is that a plot summary should be a pure precis, with nothing that's not immediately present in the original book. The plot summary for The Sound and the Fury, to pick just one example, is full of unsourced critical claims. The problem is not restricted to plot summaries; A Confederacy of Dunces has no plot-summary section at all, but sources not a single claim about the book's content! Someone added "citation needed" tags to various other statements, but left sections 1, 2, and 4 alone, as if everything about the content is immune to WP:NOR altogether. I suspect (but have not verified) that in the domains of movie and TV episodes the WP:NOR violations are even worse. --John Cowan 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, in addition I don't quite agree that "Talk:The Hobbit#Overhaul, which illustrates the WP:NOR concern rather well". I do see it struggles with some of the resultant issues. But it doesn't as far as I can see address the problem directly - in the terms you have anyway. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I replied to this the other day, but it looks like it was lost in the shuffle: As plot summaries probably implicitly reference the primary source, it appears to fall under the guidelines regarding the descriptive use of primary sources in WP:NOR. This covers the example discussion regarding alleged OR analysis ("quixotic") found in The Hobbit synopsis. Plot summaries are also mentioned in WP:NOT#IINFO. The selection of content (e.g., should the Beorn visit be mentioned?) is often discussed per-article, without many general guidelines. Wikipedia: Television episodes#Plot summaries has an interesting angle: "The only purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information." These related guidelines should be taken into consideration if another guideline is produced here. --Mrwojo 20:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Book reviews

Can I/should I post questions here? If not, please move me to a more appropriate location (and a note on my talk page!). I'm trying to see if there's guidelines on linking to book reviews from external sites, and book reviews in general. The closest I've found so far is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Reception. The question sources from this discussion and something said about any reviews being better than no reviews, even if they're non-professional. I'm trying to find out if I'm holding to an unreasonably high standard for ELs or if it's appropriate. And finally, I realized this might be a more appropriate venue. Any comments, opinions or archived discussions I could be referred to? WLU (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The aim is to get comment from professionals or at least those unbiased by being fan cruft types, Literary magazines, newspaper reviews and to a lesser extent genre related trade journals etc. the more literary weight to the grist the better. Does that answer or not!? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
My problem is that's the standard I'm aiming for, but on the AN posting I've comments from people who think the external page that started the discussion is notable enough to get posted. Here is the website posting for one author, here are the reviewers writing reviews. I thought it was a relatively innocuous removal per WP:EL, but was smacked down : ) When that happens, I'm curious if I'm missing some key interpretation, being overzealous, or in some other way being out of keeping with the opinion of 'the community'. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
Thanks for responding, much obliged! WLU (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
My thought having looked at these links is that the reviews are clearly borderline. On balance I personally would include them for lack of anything else. However I would remove them if better sources for reviews became available. The reviewing base just seems to informal. Just slightly up from "fan cruft" types (i.e. people who are fans of "the author" anyway), these are more like "genre cruft" types if you see what I mean. No harm in that but not quite the same weight. As I say include them for lack of others, but I might be nice to indicate in the reference the nature of the type of review. The Kahooper comments are all very interesting, bit self serving although not strictly advertising much. Can you quote the article that caused your original comment? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There were several, but basically review Kahooper's contributions Kahooper (talk · contribs) - Janny Wurts, Cornelia Funke, Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson, Guy Gavirel Kay, Anne Bishop, Scott Lynch, Patrick Rothfuss, Merideth Ann Pierce, Poul Anderson, Matther Anderson, Lloyd Alexander, Alma Alexander, Joan Aiken, Daniel Abraham, Joe Abercrombie, as well as the Fantasy, List of fantasy authors, Fantasy literature and List of fantasy novels pages. Basically her sole actions on wikipedia have been adding links to her website, creating an article about her website, and attempting to keep her article and links to her webpage on wikipedia. No content has been added. Also note that the page does get remuneration from book sellers if people click to amazon from her page. This is just the list of Kahopper's additions. There's also a variety of anon IPs adding the links to pages, though there's only a couple that Hopper has stated were added by her as an anon and I think there were a couple other users who were doing the same thing (not socks, just people who felt the page should be added). I think there's a sincere belief that they are helping, a small portion of self-interest, and a large dearth of understanding of wikipedia's policies. WLU (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the selling element of the site - oops - that does make it a "no no" then. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive discussion about this. It's much better than just being reverted. We have links to Amazon mostly as a courtesy for readers. You've got to tell them where to get the book and it allows me to show the book cover legally. Nearly any review site will do that. We get a small commission, but added up, it will probably cover only the costs of our web hosting and domain names. We are not making any money, in other words. None.

So far I have only added links to Wiki articles for authors we have mostly positive reviews for because I figured that authors monitor their pages and will just delete us if we have negative reviews. It seemed like it wasn't worth the effort. So, I wasn't even going to try adding a link to Terry Goodkind's article, for example. But, if you look at the site, we have plenty of negative reviews. We are not trying to sell these books -- we are warning readers against them. There are very few books that we suggest that people actually buy. We most often recommend library loans and Paperback Swap. I know you don't have the time to or inclination to go exploring my website for all of that information, so I thought I should jump in and mention it here because I think you might have the idea that we are promoting books that we want people to purchase from us so we can make money. That is not the case.

WLU, I think you mentioned advertising on the site. I have now taken off all but what I considered the necessary ads: those for finding the book on Amazon in the US and UK and also audiobooks on Audible.com (readers NEED this information.) I will not put the other ads back on. I know that linking on Wikipedia will not increase my search engine results. So, I'm not trying to make money or increase my rank. I sincerely believe we've got a resource that readers want to know about. And, in fact, we got lots of hits from Wikipedia before my links were reverted, which shows that people did consider it a useful resource.

Again, thanks for the time and effort on this. Kahooper (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

The amount is irrelevant - making any money at all or any advertising is a reason to not link. And I disagree that it will add anything to the pages - the books require reliable sources and discussions with notable authorities. The problem for me is still that your page is the opinion of random people. Judging by your comments, you are the one who selects reviewers and reviews, but there is no evidence of you being a reliable source or noteworthy expert on fantasy literature. Finally, usefulness is not the criteria for anything on wikipedia (among other things we are not a how-to manual), reliable information is. Reliability is discussed here and here. I would consider a request for comment to be a way of resovling this independently and conclusively (for me). If the RFC says the links are adequate, I'll leave them alone.
Authors should not be editing their own pages. WLU (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not a review site has advertising is irrelevant. Even sites like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and so forth have advertising of one kind or another. The new York Times site has advertising. Advertising on the site is irrelevant. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, point 6. Also, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC are all unambiguously reliable sources (for limited types of info, I wouldn't use 'em for a medical articles). I also would not link them in the EL section, I would embed them as inline citations. The only page I would consider those to be appropriate ELs would be the CNN, FoxNews and MSNBC pages respectively. News stories are not good ELs, per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 - a news story doesn't add anything a well sourced and written article can/should contain. WLU (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
So, how do you define "objectionable amounts"? Just because a site has advertising does not mean you should automatically discount including the site as a potential source of reviews. As I've indicated, many sites which are considered reliable sources include varying degrees of advertising (from very little to ads all over the place). A genre review site should be considered a much better source for reviews than a non-genre "academic" site, especially since most "academics" don't have a clue about what makes good fantasy or science fiction and generally don't review science fiction and fantasy unless they are runaway best sellers (NY Times list, for example). Most books should have at least 2-4 links to external reviews (both positive and negative) in order to provide content or insights not appropriate for inclusion in the article itself. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, any. My objection isn't solely based on the advertising, it's one that pushes it further into unacceptable. Advertising applies to ELs, not reliable sources by the way. I'm not advocating 'scholarly' review sites, just notable ones - national papers and magazines. Your opinion on the number of links to external reviews - personal, or based on a specific wikiproject, policy or guideline? Personally I disagree, but I'm willing to be trumped by policy or guidelines. WLU (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But this doesn't seem to be relevant for other websites that have linked to fantasy authors. Many of them have links to pages that link to Amazon (which means they get a kick-back) and/or have google ads. For example, there are many links to SffWorld, Scifan, IBDoF, and fantastic fiction. All have links or ads. Please visit Stephen R. Donaldson and Carol Berg for example. These were the first two I thought of and I checked their pages and found Google ads on the links. I purposely did not put Google ads on my site because I didn't want readers to think I wanted them there for their money.

About notability and reliability: the external link guidelines clearly state that reviews are welcome and should be linked:

"4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

FantasyLiterature.net contains reviews and interviews and therefore, according to Wikipedia guidelines, should be included. Reviews are, by nature, subjective, so I wonder if the "reliability" issue means the same thing for a review as it does for facts. But, even if not, we are not "random people." Amazon reviews are "random people." We are people who have been reading and reviewing in this genre for years and we have a passion for it. If you take a look at the reviews (I know that's asking a lot -- this isn't your job), I think you'll agree that we are serious about this and are as reliable and neutral as possible. Just because we have recently put our reviews in this format (a relatively new website), doesn't make us unreliable or non-noteworthy.

BTW, I know that authors should not be editing their own pages. But, I'm sure they read them and if we are linked to them and they don't like what we say, they will get the link off. But, I'm willing to try. . . :) Kahooper (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

For others coming to this discussion, we have also discussed these issues previously in these places:

Brandon Sanderson talk page
Nihonjoe talk
kahooper talk
Deor talk and again
It's also a matter of what the link adds - if it's an interview, then the link is completely justified per WP:EL. If you look at SRD's ELs, you've got the author's website, an on-line project hosted by a university, an ISDB (which I'm not sure is a good thing or not, I've never seen an opinion but has a template so I assume is good), and an interview. The rest I've removed per WP:EL. It's difficult to use other pages as examples of what does, or should exist because it is a wiki and anyone can edit. The only real exception are featured articles, otherwise we have to go by policy and guidelines. On Berg's page, there is her own site (clearly passes WP:EL), an interview (clearly passes) and the ISFD (someone put in a template, which means someone knowledgeable about wikipedia built a template, which means it's probably been OK-ed somewhere). These pages unambiguously pass WP:EL as links to be included so the advertising isn't a barrier. In contrast, your site does not appear to be a reliable source (try using it to justify text somewhere, see what kind of reception you get), or notable, nor are your reviewers RSes or notable, and you have advertising links. No strikes for, a strike against. If you probed at WP:EL, I think you'll find that when it says 'reviews', it means professional reviews. And you could find amazon reviewers who have been reviewing for years, or www.incohatus.com who has been reviewing for years. But still, these pages can not be linked. There are many people who are serious about what they do, but they don't get wikipedia pages and they don't get to be reliable sources without some official acknowledgement. Has your site received awards? Has it been covered in a major newspaper or on-line source? Has it recieved any attention from a notable person who has published this in a WP:RS?
If you do get interviews with authors, then you are welcome to post those on the individual pages.
Someone discussing their own page on the talk page aren't really going to get much weight, they are just as bound (even more so really) by the guidelines for WP:BLP and WP:V/WP:RS. They are not themselves a reliable source. WLU (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What is annoying is that those links (like the ones you removed) are all over the place. I realize that that doesn't mean they should be ("if your friend jumped off a cliff . . ."), but it's a big part of why I thought I was justified and it's annoying that I'm the one who got hammered for it and those links stay. But, that's not a good argument . . .

You are right that we are not "professional" reviewers (although one of us is, two of us have been asked to be in Amazon's Vine projects, another of us is a master's student in literature and studying to be a critic, and I teach writing). Perhaps I should pay them. But I don't make any money off this, so I can't.

But, in the section that says "links to be considered," #4 seems to apply to us: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

I carefully read the section about links to avoid. We don't seem to violate any of those guidelines. About advertising, it says to avoid "links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". I really don't think you can call what we have "objectionable." There are no Google ads or banners and we only have "ads" for the 3 places where people need to be able to see the book or audiobook they're interested in. It is clearly not a commercial site.

We add information that's important to readers of an author (and we got a lot of visits from Wikipedia until the links were removed) and we don't try to sell people anything. Don't you think this fits the spirit of: #4 Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources  ? Kahooper (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

They are everywhere, which is why I am death on links that don't comply with WP:EL. Imagine seeing that for months, over a year, and people who keep replacing them all the time. Remember, you are justified in removing them, and it would do wikipedia a great favour.
Paying them isn't the problem, its that they're not paid by The Ottawa Citizen, The Washington Post, Time, CNN, FoxNews or some other reliable source. You guys wouldn't be considered knowledgeable in my opinion. Again, look into WP:RFC if you think I'm wrong, or bring this up elsewhere. There's three editors who don't think there's merit, one who does, and one of the 'no' sides is Kevin Lewis. See #46 here. I'd respect his opinion if he gave it (incidentally, I'm on there too, but you don't have to listen to either of us because of us).
Also, remember the first pillar - we are an encyclopedia. Our content is kept to a high standard because of our policies and guidelines. Would you accept technical writing advice from someone who wrote screenplays? The point is relevant experience and recognition. I was a Masters student in psychology, but I'm not qualified to completely re-write the psychology articles because of it. Even were I to write, submit and have accepted a thesis, I can't cite it until it's published in a journal. Standards like this make wikipedia a better, more reliable place to get information from.
I appreciate the civil dialoge by the way. I hope I'm conveying why you are facing resistance and the background behind it. WLU (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


I totally understand your point (and also appreciate the civility), but I hope you can see how frustrating it is that my links have been blackballed (for not being sneaky enough, perhaps) while other links have not. I understand that you don't like the other links, either, but other editors have allowed them to stay. So, I hope you can see why I've pursued this. It didn't make sense that we got edited out while the others didn't. We have been noted by Preditors & Editors as an "impressive" review site (and did will in their contest) and we've had very positive feedback from several authors.

BTW, I had to share this since it came by email last night: one of my reviewers (not one of them mentioned above as studying to be a critic, or paid reviewer, etc.) has been "nominated for two Pushcart Prizes for an essay in Colorado Review and a group of short stories in Rosebud." Some of the others have won awards for writing (not reviews, though one IS a professional reviewer). My point is that I think I've carefully put together a team of excellent reviewers and I'm hoping that others will consider (as Nihonjoe does, and there were a couple others who I can't remember) that links to good reviews are informative and fit the "links to be considered" spirit. Kahooper (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

If you are as offended by spurious ELs as I am, you could join WP:WPSPAM or simply excise the links as you find them. I will almost certainly agree with you as my standards for ELs is quite high, meaning I remove a lot of them. The best response to a whole lot of low-quality links clogging up pages is, in my opinion, not to add more that themselves do not meet with a high standard. Your page might be better than some review sites out there, but it's still not of the professional quality that I think are the only ones that should be on wikipedia. Congrats to your reviewer, if they ever become a noted professional in a national or international magazine or news medium responsible for reviewing fantasy books, invite them to add their reviews published in those media as external links. WLU (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Well, I'll certainly remove the next portal I see.

I have added my links to interviews with 2 authors because it seems like you gave me permission for that. But, we still have not answered the question I asked above: "Don't you think this fits the spirit of: #4 Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"? Clearly this guideline is talking about linking to "unreliable" sources (such as FantasyLiterature.net) and we contain information that is not available in the article. That guideline is talking about information like "unreliable" reviews.

Nihonjoe said "the page offers several reviews which may be useful to people, please do not remove this link again" in his edit summary on the Brandon Sanderson page, and at Nihonjoe talk he said "In this case, I (re)linked to it because the page provided reviews for three of Sanderson's books, they were decent reviews, and were likely to be useful to someone interested in quickly learning more about the books in the context of a review. Rather than simply removing them, I find it infinitely more productive to have the link there and only replace it if you can find something better. Yes, it may not meet your almost unattainable qualifications, but it provides something useful to the reader of the article. Removing it only removes that opportunity for the reader. The reviews on that page may or may not be "professional" (which is really a very subjective term for measuring, as very few sites give any indication that their reviews are edited, or that the reviewers are somehow compensated), but they are the ONLY reviews anyone has ever linked to from the Brandon Sanderson article. I think it is better to give the reader SOMETHING, rather than NOTHING." So, it seems to me that he gives permission for linking reviews in articles that don't have reviews. Kahooper (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

Yup, I have no problem with links to interviews. I don't really 'give permission', I have no real authority or power to do so, but I agree that the content is suitable. Nihonjoe is more capable of 'giving permission' because he (she?) is an admin and can block, but ultimately it's not up to one person it's up to WP:CONSENSUS.
I see #4 as clearly providing a spirit of professional reviews - knowledgeable means notable in my mind, or passes the buck to 'how do we determine someone is knowledgeable'? I've brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Question_about_criteria_4 for an opinion, hopefully a useful discussion or opinion will come up (and possibly adjust the guideline if they think it's worth clarifying). I do have a fairly strict interpretation of guidelines and policies, maybe I'm missing the point. Your point about reliability seems to mix two points. In what should be linked #4, I think sites should be reliable. In Links to be considered, there is no mention of reviews or interviews, and would be more about opinions from notable blogs and experts where sources are self-published.
The opinion that the reviews were 'decent' is just that, an opinion, I see it as an aesthetic judgment. If someone disagrees, who is right? If they think they are terrible reviews, do they get removed or not? I've always hated the 'find something better to replace this one' because it implies that there must be links. WP:EL says, a lack of links is not a reason to add one, so I find the comment to be without merit, particularly since WP:NOT#PLOT says plot summaries are out on wikipedia (but then again, your site is not wikipedia). I've also hated the argument that things should be 'useful'. Things should be informative, 'cause wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not useful because we are not a how to manual. WLU (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By "useful," I have meant "useful for information."  :) People come to Wikipedia articles about fantasy authors for information about that author's work. It seems like reviews, lists of epics in order, cover art, publishing dates, book synopses, etc are exactly the kinds of information they are most likely to be looking for. We've got that. I sincerely do admire and appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia from being a free-for-all (that's a tough job!), but might you be overzealous on this point? I really just can't see how we are not considerable in light of "links to be considered #4." Kahooper (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

If it's useful for information, it should be a reliable source and an embedded link; also, book pages are mostly supposed to be about real world impact and interest rather than in-universe information. Sadly, this is not the reality but it should be. I would agree with everything except reviews. I could be overzealous here, hence the attempt to get input from other editors. WLU (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, WLU, I appreciate your consideration and the discussion. Kahooper (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)kahooper

Is there any objection to adding the "Wikipedia style guideline" category to the page?

The infobox says this is a style guideline, and it has the style bar on the right side, but it's not in any category. Should I add the category? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

talk about novel first?

Scartol and I are having a minor disagreement on the order in which material should be discussed. It might be simplest to just look at two different versions of the lede for the article La Peau de chagrin and see which seems to make sense (only the order of the paragraphs are different):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Peau_de_chagrin&oldid=218728050

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Peau_de_chagrin&oldid=218629644

My contention is that it's best to talk about the novel first, and then follow it with a discussion of the role of the novel in the author's career. Scartol considers that part of the novel's "Background", which following this guideline, means that it should be more prominent. (I think that's a fair summary, but corrections are welcome.) -- Doom (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it's especially important in La Peau de chagrin, since it contains a number of important autobiographical elements. Ultimately, I don't think it's crucial to impose one structure or the other – and as a result, it seems like leaving it as is would be the most logical path here. – Scartol • Tok 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
My complaint isn't about the emphasis on the autobiographical aspects of the novel (which aren't discussed until much later in the article), but the emphasis on the role of the novel in establishing the author's career. And at present, the first two paragraphs of "Background" look like they belong in the article about Balzac, rather than in an article about the novel. -- Doom (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
But my point is that the background info on his career set the stage for explaining the autobiographical elements. Without the first paragraph of "Background", the first paragraph of "Themes/Autobiography" would need a significant amount of explanation.
The second paragraph of "Background" – while not essential for discussing the book itself, but significant for later reference in "Reception", especially insofar as Mme. Hanska first discovered Balzac through La Physiologie du mariage – is important, I feel, for situating Balzac at the time of the novel's composition. Just as the third and fourth paragraphs of "Background" explain what France was like at the time in terms of literary tastes and social politics. – Scartol • Tok 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
One part of me (the writer or reader: I'm not sure) doesn't care (or wouldn't notice) which order – the lead is well-written and provides an excellent overview. The other part prefers the first version (218728050) because I find it flows better: from plot to focus/elements to theme to publication to career significance. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of the article. ÷maclean 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've read it back and forth a couple of times and I'm a bit stumped. Both versions work well for me, and although the emphasis is subtly different, I can't say that one emphasis or the other is clearly more appropriate. It possibly boils down to where you fall along that whole spectrum of how significant the biography of authors are to their work. For me the two different versions are a coin toss. (Sorry if that's no help; on the other hand, hopefully it's no stress which ever version it ends up with.) --JayHenry (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

'Editions' Section

In some articles, such as HP7, there are 'Editions' sections, which I really do like and think that it brings to the article, but is the format used in the HP article the proper way to do it? Or was it just created for that article, and basically anything goes? ~ Bella Swan? 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks rather too much like advertising to me there is little sence of bibliographic record just ISBN numbers and bindings. The section "publication history" or "publication details" would be a better way to go. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle Royale

I keep coming across character articles from Battle Royale that appear to be nothing more than a non-notable summary of that character with no real-world context. Anyway, there are 42 character articles that I'd like to trim and merge into a character list, I'd like input from the group before I do it so I can have a consensus. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose Reword of Reception

Since this a bit bolder than some of the other edits I've made lately to the style guides, I'm posting here for discussion first. I'd like to propose replacing the current reception section:

Understanding the novel's position in its own society and in later literary and cultural traditions is crucial; this material should be presented in a "Reception and legacy" section (clearly, a modern novel can't have much of a legacy yet). You should analyze how the novel was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known reviewers at the time that the novel was published, and not comments from members of the public. (Quotes from users on Amazon.com and blogs do not count, as these are self-published). Comments from influential opinion-makers are acceptable, however; for example, it may well be interesting what Queen Victoria said about a particular Victorian novel. Your research will tell you what is important and what is not.
Relying on your research, also indicate what the public reaction to the novel was. Sales figures can help indicate this, but do not rely exclusively on reviews and sales figures for this section. Since reading habits were different in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is helpful to include descriptions of readers' responses to the novel as well as descriptions of how the novel was read. For a good example of this, see the "Style" section of Uncle Tom's Cabin which explains the "sentimental" style of the novel and how readers responded at the time. Such descriptions help the reader understand the novel within its historical and social context. If the novel is a cult novel, an explanation of how the "cult" label developed would also be appropriate (again, all of this information would come from your research).

With something along this line:

Reliable sources should be used to determine how the novel was received, including sales figures (where available), award nominations and wins, and, primarily, critical reception. Critical reception should be sourced to professional novel critics, though reliable sources from notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the novel may also be cited. The use of print reviews is encouraged. Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the novel. These will be more reliable in retrospect; while recently released novels may need to refrain from trying to summarize the overall consensus until sufficient reviews are available. To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews, showing both positive and negative reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. novels that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used.
For older novels, seek reviews from the period of the novel's release and the present to determine if a novel's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today. If there are sufficient reviews from the novels period of release and more modern times, it may be useful to include subsections for "Contemporary reception" and "Retrospective reception". Reception section from the novel's country of origin are both recommended, and required for high class articles (i.e., Chinese reviews for a Chinese novel, French reviews for a French novel). Evaluations from English-speaking territories are also desirable and useful, but again, strive for balance and avoid systemic bias. Do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g., user comments from Amazon.com or personal blogs), as they are self-published and have no proven expertise or credibility in the field.

I feel the current version unintentionally encourages WP:OR and does not clearly define what reception is, and emphasize the need for all reception to be from reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Bloat Warnings

Hi there. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

poetry and prose collections

We could really use a MOS for poetry too. If there is one, haven't spotted it. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential changes to WP:WAF

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate section?

Is something like this -- a list of titles for a work's various translations -- an appropriate section? I don't see it in the structure guide, and it seems a bit trivial. Input? --EEMIV (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned translations in Pattern Recognition (novel)#Publication history. I think translations are important enough to mention, but I think this list here places undue weight on their importance relative to other aspects of the novel. Not a rule, but my opinion is that they are best displayed in footnotes, like I did here: The World Without Us#Publication (footnotes 17-22). maclean (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
For that particular case, it would be better to prosify the list, saying which languages and/or countries the book was translated and published in, the level of detail right now is way too much, Sadads (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. NoeticaTea? 00:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Boldfacing Character Names in Characters Section?

My understanding is that per MOS:BOLD, when there is a list of characters provided in an article for a novel, the characters' names should not be in boldface. Boldface would be acceptable if the article was a list of the characters, but not when the article is about the novel. I am in discussions with an editor who feels that with regards to the Characters section of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry the article is improved if the character names are boldfaced. I reviewed MOS:NOVELS and the Characters section doesn't appear to discuss formatting. MOS:FILM makes it explicitly clear that character names should not be in boldface, but I don't want to assume that the same guidelines apply to novel articles. Thanks for your input! Doniago (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Input was provided here. Based on that I'll assume the answer is not to boldface unless I get more feedback to the contrary. Doniago (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It clearly states on MOS:FILM that:

Cast lists should not use table formats (see Wikipedia:When to use tables). Neither the actor nor role name should be bolded.

The editor who responded to Doniago (talk) here, stated that MOS:FILM should be applied to MOS:NOVELS as well, and I would think it would then logically also apply to MOS:TELEVISION SHOWS. If this is true or has been reached by consensus in the past, then I suggest the following language should be added to MOS:NOVELS:

Character lists should not use table formats (see Wikipedia:When to use tables). The character names should not be bolded.

Otherwise, can an RFC be conducted to see what consensus finds here for MOS:NOVELS bolding character names? Does an RFC take an administrator to start or what? --RedEyedCajun (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can start an RFC. WP:RFC would be a good starting point. (smile) As far as modifying the guidelines themselves, I'm not sure there's a reson to add what shouldn't be done unless it's pernicious enough that there is a feeling that it needs to be explicitly delineated. In this case, defaulting to the more general guidelines suggests that bolding shouldn't be used. My opinion, of course. I have to admit, given what I perceive as relatively low activity levels here I get the feeling that either the project is going smoothly enough that there's rarely much to discuss, or not many editors are particularly invested in it. Doniago (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what our exact policy is, but I never ever put them in bold. None of the novel FA articles have character names in bold as far as I'm aware. Btw - the discussion isn't on the article talkpage where it should be. Can you link to it? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This one? Doniago (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Not the one to the MoS discussion - it had to have started somewhere else, but I haven't time to look. Anyway, I started a thread on the Roll of Thunder page with a few suggestions. That's where discussion should be happening, I think. Try to work it out on the article talk page first. I'm popping in & out, and a bit busy, but I'll add to the talkpage examples of novel articles where the character names aren't bolded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I think I see what you're asking. An editor boldfaced the names on the RoT page. When I unbolded them because of MOS:BOLD they started a discussion on my Talk page. As the situation seemed to concern overall policy rather than policy for a specific article I started the discussion here, and when that failed to engender a response I went to the overall MOS page and linked to here. I'm not sure why the editor who felt the names should be bolded didn't bring it up on the article's Talk page, but editors going directly to editors rather than an article's Talk page seems to be a trend. Doniago (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Different language, different wiki

It would be really useful if there would be an equivalent in Romanian, can I just create it through a ro:Manual estetic/Roman link or do I need superior clearance or permission, or a particular format?-Eb00kie (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Manuals of style are guidelines developed within each language by that language community. If you are going to take part in developing a manual of style for Romanian on Novels, fiction, etc. you should propose a draft there and modify it per the language community. Remember, each language community creates it's own policies beyond the 5 pillars, thus some languages will find they need certain policies, while for others the policy may be unneccesary because the community isn't dealing with the same complex issues. This is particularly true of taking English policies to other communities, because English is dealing with much more complex issues because of its size and popularity then other Wikipedias, Sadads (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

More explicit Characters section guideline

As detailed in one of the previous sections, it is currently ambiguous (in the MoS) as to whether character names in the Characters section should be in bold. Even aside from this, however, there are still a lot of differing interpretations when it comes to the formatting of these sections. Many are formatted as lists, with *, **, etc. while more rarely they are organized in tables. The notability of the work and subsequent attention to its article mainly determine the number and detail of characters listed, which is not at issue. In the spirit of consistency, it may be worth considering the inclusion of more explicit guidelines on the style of the Characters section for fictional works/novels. This may or may not require a RFC, but in my opinion it would be worth the effort so the project may present a more unified front towards the inclusion and organization of character lists.

Please indicate if this is the appropriate place for a discussion of this scope. I welcome any constructive responses to this proposal. HectorAE (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should every novel include a Plot Summary?

D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC) There is a conflict between the policy suggested here for plot summaries and "The Missing Manual". The latter is clear that Plot Summaries are not suitable Wikipedia content; Personally I think a Plot Summary is OK content, but I can see the the argument that it is not Encyclopaedic material: would Encyclopaedia Britannica have a plot summary for every novel listed? Perhaps major novels (however defined) should have a Plot Summary, for others a description of the genre of would suffice. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Encourage but do not require plot summaries in all cases. I've read articles on works of fiction that have plot summaries and those that don't. I'm usually reading the article because I want to know "What is this book/show/movie actually about?" and articles with plot summaries answer that question much better than those without plot summaries. The kind of information usually covered in secondary sources, such as the critical response, production process or cultural impact, is far less useful if the basics are not addressed first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Encourage, but don't allow the plot summary to be more than 50% of the article's content, per WP:PLOT (plot summaries are allowed and encyclopedic, but they must be put in real-world context). Also, note that whenever an informative page like "The Missing Manual" contradicts a policy, the policy takes precedence. Diego (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Please withdraw and close this RfC: there is no conflict here. "The Missing Manual" referred to by the OP is a help file that explains how we use WP:PLOT, and it does so erroneously. Because of this error, the OP is reading this literally and out of the original context of the original policy (WP:NOT) which specifies that "summary-only descriptions of works" are to be discouraged, not the inclusion of plot summaries in and of themselves. This is covered in its entirety by MOS:PLOT. Obviously, the help file needs to be changed because 1) it is wrong, and 2) it has confused at least one editor, and likely several more. I have remedied the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 to the reasoning put forward by User:Viriditas to close the RFC. This is not a policy level issue, just a help manual that doesn't wholly interpret the community consensus well, Sadads (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Close Viriditas is correct, The Missing Manual was in error. --SubSeven (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Fiction MOS?

There are some ongoing discussions relating to the Comics MOS which indicate that there would be a utility to having a broad MOS which deals with all works of fiction. This page might be counted, maybe, as being the most likely starting point for such. Would anyone have any interest in working to develop a clear MOS which would be able to deal with those works and characters of fiction which cross specific media and/or formats? John Carter (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I've been working on some less formal guidelines, which may be easier for worried neophytes to deal with. DS (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Characters section

Hi everyone. I've been doing plot related edits for quite a little while now, and I have some concerns regarding 'Characters' sections. They are a magnet for fancruft and in-universe fluff and I would like to seek some opinions on a proposed re-write of the Characters section in this MOS, RfC to follow if required.

Current text:

  • "If appropriate, a character section would consist of brief character outlines, as opposed to a simple list. Length of each entry should vary relative to the character's importance to the story. Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader."

Issues with current text: When is it appropriate? What is a brief character outline? If most articles don't need this section, why don't we start with that?

Proposed re-write:

  • "In the majority of cases, a Characters section is inappropriate. The plot summary should already contain the events that the significant characters in the story experience and the affect this has on them (if relevant to the readers understanding of the novel). A Characters section should only be included if it contains information that helps the reader understand the events of the novel or contains information that would be inappropriate to include in the plot summary. For example, the novel may have a complex narrative covering characters appearing in differing locations and/or timelines (e.g. A Game of Thrones) or contain characters that are referred to with more than one name that may confuse the reader (e.g. War and Peace). In the event that a Characters section is agreed to be necessary to assist the readers understanding of certain elements of the novel, the contents of the character outline should specifically address these needs. For example, if the events of the plot are difficult to follow due to the number of characters and their location within the narrative, the characters section should only contain enough detail for the reader to be able to identify who and where they are. The characters section should not needlessly repeat the events already described in the plot summary or include unnecessary trivia."

Benefits of re-write: Since the broadcast of the TV adaptation, American Gods (the novel) has started attracting a lot of edits that add trivial details to the characters bios. I've been removing some at the time and I recently pruned it back quite a lot (I'm not pretending that's what left there is a shining example of this should be done by any means). However, that article probably should have a characters section because it allows us to present some useful information about those characters (mainly the fact that they are interpreted versions of folkloric figures) which wouldn't naturally fit inside the plot summary itself. What we don't need are descriptions of characters greasy appearances etc. This re-write I believe fits better with the directions in WP:WAF, particularly relating to in-universe writing and would have the benefit of making it easier to remove fancrufty over-detailed trivia as it would place the onus on the person who wants to include the information.

What are your thoughts? Do you disagree with the approach, or with the details as written? I'll leave this here for a little while to see if anyone comments, otherwise I'll be BOLD and make the change. Scribolt (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt: In part I agree with you: many character sections should not exist, if the plot summary is sufficiently developed. However, I don't think you are accounting for most of the appropriate uses of character sections in that rewrite:
  • If sources provide significant analysis of the characters
  • If the characters are sufficiently complicated that its useful to break them out, beyond the plot (which you mention)
  • If the characters are of significant cross-work interest (not immediately finding a model for this, but I am thinking Sherlock Holmes type characters or Comic book characters, which are being constantly reinterpreted in different ways/timelines/versions)
  • If there is sufficient information in a secondary list of content (for example, The_League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen)
In part, I think the initial statement "In the majority of cases, a Characters section is inappropriate." does not give enough permission for folks to make their own judgement calls on the appropriate pages. Also, the last couple sentences don't make much sense to me. I think we need to be more specific about what we want from the sections, rather than placing prohibitions on what is in those sections.
Remember this is a guide, in part, for writing the articles (all the Category:Novel stubs templates link to the style guide, for instance). Saying no in our policies, doesn't actually promote a model of constructive contribution, but tends to get used to WP:Wikilawyer, WP:BITE and make overly aggressive "mass consistency" campaigns which hurt new users (our plot summaries and character sections tend to be crappy, but they are also great ways for new users to get involved: for example, I started on Wikipedia by working on Jack Whyte novels, and Patrick O'Brian novels, and those sections (as well as the OR-ish "cultural references" sections). I hope that helps, and am looking forward to a new draft :) Sadads (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It does, you make some good points. I'll wait a while before attempting to re draft, but the cross work characters is similar to the American Gods example where a character section can be usefully used to provide context and should probably be addressed as a specific use case. Thanks for your input. Scribolt (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sadads. I've been thinking a bit about your comments. Firstly, I agree that the tone of that draft is a little negative and it should be a bit more welcoming. I'll try and address that below, but as you correctly pointed out, some of the plot and character sections are indeed 'a bit crappy' and I was trying to provide something that if people are referred to, actually explains what should and shouldn't be done I have a couple of question related to your bullet points, which I'd appreciate your thoughts on:

  • If sources provide significant analysis of the characters
Have you got an example where this is done well? I'm of the opinion that if there's a load of meaningful analysis of the character, then the analysis itself should be provided (sourced). From what I've seen, the characters section really only ever provides potted biographies of the characters, which doesn't help the reader understand the narrative (unless the narrative is very complicated as mentioned above) or understand what the sources analysis of the characters actually say. I've seen character articles that do this well, and list of characters articles (although not many) that do this well, but I've never seen what I'd think as good character analyses provided in the short list in the novel article because there simply isn't space and the significant analysis in the sources rarely extend to all the characters.
I partially agree with this. I think TLOEG does this well, in that it provides links to the character articles but nothing more. Any accompanying text should be minimal at most.
  • "Also, the last couple sentences don't make much sense to me. I think we need to be more specific about what we want from the sections, rather than placing prohibitions on what is in those sections. "
I'll try and re-phrase this but I'm still of the opinion that it's not inappropriate to be a little prohibitive, because this falls a bit into what Wikipedia is not territory and it's even harder for a newish editor to understand how that applies to them rather than a more local explanation here. If someone one, enthusiastically, wants to insert everything that they know about what the characters do, dress, behave etc in a character section I think it's a good thing to be able to point them at this, and for them to see not only what it's for, but what it's not for. Some of the other MOS pages take a much more proscriptive approach, but I should have been a bit more receptive to how this page has evolved and it's tone. If no one else comments, I'll try a new draft later in the week. Scribolt (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I find the Character lists to be useful, and do not agree with the present negative view of those lists om the MOS. For novels in a series, it helps to keep track of when characters enter or leave the series. Plus I think it is difficult to have both a terse plot summary and no character list. Some characters are of interest but are not part of the shortest version of the plot, because they are red herrings in a mystery, or other aspects considered not the main plot. That does not make the characters less important or interesting, in my view. So, I would rather the MOS go the other way, and encourage an accurate list of characters with terse or long descriptions as is appropriate. Some characters in Dickens and Austen novels get their own article, as well as being placed in a list. I see, you would rather have a simple wiki link to the article, and omit discussion of the character on the article about the novel -- that seems tedious, to force jumping around. I find it a loss to the article when an editor wipes out most of the characters in a list. I often read novels as audio books, which is what brought me to Wikipedia articles on novels, and I want to see how names are spelled, check that I am following the characters. What is a novel without characters? This feels like an over-coreection because one article is attracting many editors to add their two cents worth in a character list. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS:TONE/MOS:FICT, WP:PSTS, and reviews of fictional works

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed clarification of reviews' relation to WP:PSTS and MOS:TONE. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft guideline material on how to write (and not write) "Production" sections

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#List of points to cover, a draft list of advice on the writing of "Production" sections. This is part of an RfC on MOS:FILM, but the material is written broadly enough (on purpose) it might actually live at MOS:FICT and apply to other media (TV, video games, comics, novel series, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Inline citations for plot summaries

It may be helpful for either the "Plot" or "Footnotes and references" subsections of the page's "Article body" section to advise that it's not necessary for editors to provide inline citations for plot summaries (since the source is obvious)—assuming, of course, that is the consensus. Some editors can be overzealous in relation to "unsourced" content. Note that such advice is given in relation to plot summaries for films. (See WP:FILMPLOT.) Unless anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to make the change. Pololei (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of comments, I'll make the suggested change.

The wording will be drawn from policy on: primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) since a novel is a primary source for its plot summary, plot summaries in general (MOS:PLOT—see "Plot summaries of individual works" subsection) and film plot summaries (WP:FILMPLOT), which is analogous and instrumental as a guide.

Also, I'll rephrase the opening of the "Footnotes and references" subsection since the claim "all articles should cite their sources [in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy]" is not strictly accurate. (Policy is that content must be verifiable; articles merely happen to include citations as a consequence of this. See WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE.) Pololei (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Emulating FILMPLOT on this front seems good to me. Thanks for taking this on! DonIago (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this kosher? I have my doubts about linking to an ebook, even a free, public domain copy. It seems promotional to me even if the site is not for profit, but wanted to check here first. Maybe there should be guidance in the MoS about this? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Debate: Adaptations - "Should the notability be for all kinds or only full adaptations of novels?"

Here is a question I have, regarding Adaptations of novels that are notable - Should they cover any form of adaptation, regardless of the amount used, or only a full adaptation of the novel? I ask this question, because I was recently looking over an article regarding an Agatha Christie novel, in which it featured mention of a Stage Adaptation, that only borrowed the murder plot element, and nothing else.

A full adaptation in my mind, and which is notable, covers the full work of a fictional novel, and should of course make note of whether such an adaptation in other media - radio, television, films, video games, comics and stage - makes changes to the novel's title, plot, characters, settings and so forth (any or a combination thereof), or if it remains faithful to the novel's entire presentation and story elements. But if the adaptation only covers a partial part of the novel (i.e. Title only), is that exactly what the section should cover as well? I think a discussion on this matter is needed, to determine if partial adaptations are acceptable enough to be included within novel articles, or if such partial adaptations should be put aside as a reference of the novel in another work. GUtt01 (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@GUtt01: It's not our job to judge whether or not a work is an adaptation: that would be original research via selective representation of sources. The threshold for inclusion has nothing to do with the degree of adaptation, but rather how thoroughly secondary sources discuss the adaptation or appropriation of content, etc.. Remember, it needs to be non-trivial discussion in reliable sources: per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Adaptations. Does that cover your concern here? Sadads (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
All and all the goal is to not descend into trivia, not to judge how valid an expert interpretation of a work as an adaptation is. Sadads (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sadads: I do understand that. The question is more in terms of the appropriate definition for an adaptation, in the MOS for novels, regardless of the media of the adaptation. Truth be told, if an adaptation only adapts a part or style of an element, but goes off to make something original and different to the novel itself, should it be truly considered an adaptation of the novel, or not? GUtt01 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@GUtt01: I don't even think we should try to make that distinction: ultimately our opinion, threshold or definition of "adaptation", as editors, shouldn't matter on that front (and most certainly shouldn't be in the MOS); the question we have to ask on a case by case basis is: are there reliable source materials that make the claim? If there is significant coverage of the "X is an adaptation of Y" or "X appropriates the following features from Y" then it is something that should be included in Y's adaptations section whether or not we think the source's claim is valid. We should, of course, weed out wild/marginal claims or claims made by poor sources (i.e. fan websites, not reliable blogs), but ultimately we should survey all items with significant coverage in the reliable secondary literature -- while using editorial judgement to ensure that we don't turn Adaptation sections into WP:Trivia sections. The definition of an adaptation is a hotly debated subject in many different critical contexts, with dozens of different schools of approach/thought: its not our job to navigate those or rule on "what's a "real" adaptation"; it's our job to summarize all of those claims -- whether or not we agree with them. Sadads (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Sadads on this point. My own issue on adaptations has been finding the source that makes the claim, as some editors add an anime, computer game, radio play or play to the list without any citation that the anime, computer game, radio play or play exists, and claims to be based on the novel. In the case that @GUtt01: mentions, there is a source that specifies that the plot of the novel is used for the play. The plot seems a major part of the novel to include in a play. No adaptation takes on every aspect of the novel; things are always changed from one medium to another. Finding another article that says the play has no element of Agatha Christie in it, would simply be added to the mention of the play. Plus, the adaptations of a novel, in sum, add to the notability of the novel, as others find the novel an inspiration for another medium. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sadads: can you say a little more about what constitutes a reliable source in relation to adaptations? A producer of a movie or the writer of a comic book might claim that their work is an adaptation of, or 'inspired by', a novel, and then a reviewer in a newspaper or IMDb might repeat the claim, which is then used as a source for an article. An editor familiar with the novel might notice that the so-called adaptation is no more related to the novel than chalk is related to cheese. Is that original research? Everything else in the article on the novel requires good sourcing from recognized authorities on the subject, but it seems not to be so in claims of adaptation. Here is one example that I am currently looking at: the novel in question is Dostoevsky's The Idiot, and the claimed adaptation is the movie L'Amour braque. There is not, and in my opinion never could be, a reliable source on the novel that would confirm that this movie is related to the novel. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Harold the Sheep: You ask: An editor familiar with the novel might notice that the so-called adaptation is no more related to the novel than chalk is related to cheese. Is that original research? -- I'd personally say that the answer has to be yes. If it relies on an editor who notices independently, that is original research and not enough to support a change to the article. The editor's original research might be accurate, but to justify changes to the encyclopedia, there needs to be secondary support.
If the claim for the adaptation is uncited, or cited to a really unreliable source like a fan blog, you could remove it as unverifiable and put the burden on another editor to show proof of the adaptation. (A lot of marginal ones could be removed this way, since if they don't meet GNG there won't be coverage of their status as an adaptation.) But if it's cited to something like an interview with a creator, honestly, that sounds like a reliable source to me. Especially if what they say gets repeated in further reviews, that shows that there is consensus in the secondary materials that the adaptation is part of how people think about the work. I'm not sure what could be more reliable. You could make sure the encyclopedia is accurate about the extent of the relationship described in the source (ie, if they say "inspired by" we shouldn't say "an adaptation of"). You could couch it in language like "so-and-so described X as an adaptation of Y" rather than stating outright that it is one. You could also look for reviews discussing the work to see if any of them comment on the adaptation to provide a countervailing view, or to clarify the limitations of the adaptation. But if secondary material says something is an adaptation, the encyclopedia should reflect that.
Information about real, verified adaptations could still be removed if they are detracting from the article as a whole, e.g., if the section is becoming a list of trivia. That's a separate issue. I personally prefer to address trivia lists by trying to make small paragraphs along the lines of "such-and-such has also served as inspiration for a number of video games, including X (year), Y (year), and Z (year)," which maintains the links to other works without having to devote a full sentence to each one. But it can also be appropriate to remove the less notable adaptations. A less accurate adaptation might still be more notable though, so again I'd try to be guided by secondary sources: which ones describe the adaptation most prominently in their explanations of the work? Do any of them show up in discussions of the primary work? That sort of thing. 10 Things I Hate About You is a pretty darn loose "adaptation" of The Taming of the Shrew but it was such a mainstream success, and highlighted its status as an adaptation so prominently, that I'd keep it over a lot of more "faithful" options. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 23:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Oulfis: Thanks for taking the trouble to respond. I understand what you are saying, but I’m not sure if you have entirely addressed what I am asking. In an article on a complex work of literature, everything is necessarily sourced to reliable sources on the subject. A claim of ‘adaptation’ might be made by a video game creator or a pop culture magazine, and an editor familiar with the literary work and its WP article might notice that the relationship is tenuous or even non-existent. The removal of the claim, however, is not based on this original research, it is based on the fact that no subject-expert reliable source has ever confirmed that it is an adaptation. I don’t agree that a claim made by a creator of an alleged adaptation which is then recycled by a magazine constitutes a reliable source in the context of an article about the literary work. These are not reliable secondary sources on the subject any more than an editor’s opinion. The article, since it aims to be a reliable and encyclopedic examination of the literary work, necessarily does not use casual commentary from unrelated sources with no substantial basis for their claims (except it seems, in the ‘adaptations’ section). In the case I mention above, a good argument can be made that such a relationship being noted by a subject expert not only doesn’t exist, it is not even possible. So the only original research is that of the game creator, who has no subject-expertise and no connection whatsoever to the actual subject of the article i.e. the literary work. The claim could even be made for self-promotional reasons - it gets multiple links to a literary classic in magazine and Wikipedia articles and then gets discussed as though it is an adaptation when it might not be anything of the kind and when none of the good secondary sources used for the rest of the article give any substance to it. Harold the Sheep (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Harold the Sheep: Hm, I think I see what you are saying. I think this is something that is better evaluated case-by-case than as an absolute rule, but I still think the removal you're advocatng for falls under problems of trivia, not problems of sourcing.
You refer to a reliable source in the context of an article about the literary work but sources are reliable or unreliable in the context of the facts they are supporting, not in the context of the article those facts appear in. Not everything that's true is relevant. Although the original work is always relevant to the adaptation, the adaptation is not always relevant to the original work. I think in the scenario you describe, the secondary work which drums up a very loose adaptation for press purposes absolutely must have its connection to the original work described on its article... but mention of the adaptation might not improve the article on the original work. Again I personally can imagine extremely terrible adaptations which nonetheless would be very relevant to the article on the original work, so the judgment shouldn't have to do with assessing the effectiveness, extensiveness, or quality of the adaptation. I think it's case-by-case based on what most improves people's understanding of the full historical existence of the original work. Sounds like in the case you're talking about, that metric would lead to a clear delete.
I'd also therefore still argue that the sourcing you describe likely is reliable, even if it's not relevant. I think we disagree about what "proves" something is an adaptation. I think the question is: has the secondary work been consistently described as an adaptation? That will be answered by sources about the secondary work, not the primary one. Many adaptations are indeed terrible, produced by people with no real understanding of the work they are adapting, and bear almost no resemblance to the original. Nonetheless, if the press on those secondary works consistently identifies them as adaptations, then that's how they have been defined. I cannot imagine any way for a subject expert to prove a creator wrong about their own intent and process (especially an expert in the original rather than an expert in the secondary work), other than very exceptional cases of, e.g., revealing that they had fully created their "adaptation" before encountering the primary work. (At most, critics can say it's a bad adaptation.) And once a creator has advertised a work as an adaptation, there is no disproving that they said it was one. So I stand by the idea that an interview and multiple articles constitute reliable sourcing for the secondary work's claim of adaptation.
Regardless, though, I don't think what you are describing is a problem of reliable sourcing for the facts, it a problem of the relevance of those facts. In the end, I think sourcing is actually a red herring which detracts from what's actually important, namely, due weight given to the information in the article as a whole. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 02:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Oulfis: Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I don't understand what you mean by sources are reliable or unreliable in the context of the facts they are supporting, not in the context of the article those facts appear in. The reliability of the sources—to what extent they can be trusted in relation to the subject—is essential to the quality of an article on a literary work. An unreliable source on the subject should not be used as a basis for adding alleged 'facts' about the subject to the article. It is not done in any other section of the article, so why should an exception be made for 'adaptations'? You are suggesting that if "the press" consistently refers to a secondary work as an adaptation then that is how it has been defined. But it has only been referred to this way by a very narrow group of random individuals in "the press", whose assertions about 'facts' and 'definitions' in terms of the literary work are no more reliable than a random blogger or a random editor. (The only exception would be an article by an expert on the literary work itself, in the literature section of an arts magazine or newspaper for example). The complete absence of any mention in good sources (i.e. sources that have reason to be trusted for facts and interpretations relative to the literary work and that are used for the rest of the article) should be a clue that the alleged 'adaptation' is not of much, if any, significance to the literary work itself; certainly it clearly indicates that the 'adaptation' has not been defined as such, but merely interpreted or asserted that way by a few 'creators' or reviewers whom we have no particular reason to believe. Of course these could be used for articles on the secondary work: they should not be used for articles on the primary work. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Subsequent references in article to the novel's title

I'm sure this question has been asked-and-answered (possibly many times) but I couldn't find it so here goes. If I'm working on an article (in this case The Valley of Bones), as the article goes along and I want to refer again to the title of the novel...what's the best way to do that? (Just keep repeating the full title? Etc.) Novellasyes (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: I end up saying something like "In talking about the novel, [X critic] said "[Y]" -- referring to it as a work -- I also try to change it up, especially when talking about the publishing history or themes, to give attribution to the author, or describe "the characters". You can see, for instance, in my article about The_French_Lieutenant's_Woman, I end up falling back on "the novel" or "the book" alot, you see a similar approach in featured articles like The Sun Also Rises. Sadads (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh that's great. I hadn't thought about that. The The_French_Lieutenant's_Woman is a terrific article which gives me a lot of ideas for ways to build up the novel articles I'm interested in. Thanks!! Novellasyes (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this kosher? I have my doubts about linking to an ebook, even a free, public domain copy. It seems promotional to me even if the site is not for profit, but wanted to check here first. Maybe there should be guidance in the MoS about this? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doniago: Typically we include long-term projects with clear value (i.e. Project Gutenberg/Internet Archive) -- but that external links section has become a bit unruly and not useful -- consider cleaning it up and moving some of the material to sections like Further reading or subdividing the Further reading section. Sadads (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. DonIago (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the external links section of the Huckleberry Finn article is quite crowded and that any additions to it need to meet a high bar. But I believe that there are other articles that would be improved by links to Standard Ebooks productions; for example I recently added a link on Nikolai Gogol bibliography to the Short Stories SE collection, which consolidates all public domain English translations of Gogol's short works into a single e-book volume. Other book articles with less crowded external links sections would also be better candidates. Standard Ebooks is not as established or as well known as Project Gutenberg or the Internet Archive, but I think its format offers value for readers. Full disclosure: I read Standard Ebooks productions regularly, think they're pretty great, and have even produced a few. --Mikaka (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thinking through non-citationable facts about a novel

Does anyone have pointers on how to think about including information in an article about a novel that are clearly facts about the novel, but are not in secondary sources? These are the kinds of things that you know or can perceive from reading the novel, but are not the kind of thing that generally speaking a reviewer (in a secondary source) would ever feel the occasion to mention about the novel. Here are some examples, and by listing them, I'm not trying to argue that these things should go into the article (although perhaps some of them would be good additions).

  • To whom the book is dedicated
  • If there is a somewhat standard foreword (or was on the first edition); by whom; etc.
  • What is the narrative point of view (omniscient etc etc). (This might be talked about in secondary sources for some relatively well-known novels but probably not for many others.)
  • How many chapters, sections etc in the book
  • Period of time, if known ("novel unfolds from DATE to DATE")
  • List of major characters (for a number of novels, secondary sources couldn't be relied on to mention all the major characters)

These are all things you can cite to the book itself, but I don't know how allowed that is. Novellasyes (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For at least some of those, I would think the novel itself is an acceptable primary source. I have reservations about discussing the foreword and period of time, and I'm not really sure a discussion of number of chapters is relevant, but I don't do a lot of editing in this space, so I'm happy to defer to more experienced editors. DonIago (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I find that sections, basic setting information, characters and narrative point of view are described as uncontroversial elements of the plot in most articles, so don't need a citation. As for dedications and such: I see citations to those on a regular basis. Chapters is not really encyclopedic information that we need (and varies across editions for example). Sadads (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Very helpful! Novellasyes (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ennis Del Mar or Ennis del Mar

There's currently a discussion on the appropriate spelling of Ennis Del Mar that could benefit from additional opinions here - Talk:Ennis Del Mar#Ennis del Mar (not Del Mar). I asked for additional opinions at WT:CHAR but thus far without results. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. There is now a discussion requesting a move here. It's an interesting situation, and the intuitions/opinions of various different editors are not in alignment, which is why there is a conflict/discussion going on. The gist is that the author spelled the fictional character's name "Ennis del Mar" (and some Wikipedia editors think that should settle the matter). However, later on, there was a movie (Brokeback Mountain). In the written screenplay, the fictional character's name was spelled "Ennis Del Mar". There are any number of film reviews, etc., etc., that spell the character's name by capitalizing the "d" in "del". For some Wikipedia editors, the fact that outside notable sources spell it that way should trump the spelling of the author, Annie Proulx. While none of this seems like a hill for anyone to die on, it's interesting, and in case any of you want to weigh in on it, here is where the "move" discussion is taking place. Novellasyes (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that I'm more interested in this situation as a precedent-setting exercise than I am in the capitalization of a single letter that I suspect 99%+ of Wikipedia readers will never notice/care about. I was a little surprised that I couldn't find any clear policy/guideline for this scenario. DonIago (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree! It is extremely interesting from a guideline/policy perspective. There have to be a number of other instances where something like this has happened (i.e., original author spells something one way, later productions surrounding the story do it somewhat differently.) Novellasyes (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Publication dates for serialized novels

I suggested this here [1] but just to check. I'd like to change the section on publication date to read:

The novel's earliest release, or publication in book form; if it was previously serialized, do not give the date of serialization. If not formally published, use the date written; this would be highly unusual for writing of notability.

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "pages" for most books with a "words" count

The pages count for books, at the moment, is a near-useless way to gauge how long a book is, as pages aren't standardized and can have different amount of words depending on the text size. Dune (novel) for instance, is listed as having 896 pages, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is listed as being 766 pages. This is in contrary to the fact that Dune is actually a shorter work of fiction, being 187,240 words while the Harry Potter book is 257,154 words.

I will make the argument here that, for the most part there exists no encyclopedic value for how much pages the first edition of a book has, and thus should be mass-removed from all pages about novels. After all, the page counts for novels vary widely depending on the edition, and for books like Dune or The Lord of the Rings which get reprinted dozens of times in different formats, it can vary by hundreds of pages. However, there does exist encyclopedic value in the word count for the first edition of novels, as this isn't bound to font sizes and usually only changes if the author makes edits or changes to the content of the novel themselves.

Functionally speaking, this will entail adding a new "word count" parameter for the Books infobox. This word count will probably be rounded down to the nearest 100 amount of words, to account for minor variance. The majority of novel pages as they exist right now will have to be changed to remove page counts and introduce word counts, but I believe this will be useful for readers and introduce more encyclopedic value to the Wiki.

There will be an exception for some books- such as those that lack good E-Book versions, comic books that are standardized to appear similar across editions, and books like House of Leaves where a word count would be simply infeasible. These books should, of course, retain the page counts as they currently have them.

Note: Amended following a reasonable objection by @LEvalyn.

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@HadesTTW, how are you going to get word count? Schazjmd (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I would expect that it could be done by just counting the words of an e-book, after verifying that it doesn't contain any textual differences from the first-edition. Starting from the first line to the last line.
Editors would then cite wherever did they get the e-book from- for example, if it was from Amazon. I know that's citing a primary source, but keeping WP:ALLPRIMARY in mind- even if we used secondary sources for word counts, they must have gotten the word count by just counting themselves.
I am aware that getting word counts for books will therefore be more complicated than getting page counts- which secondary sources currently just do by opening the last page and writing down the number. However, I'm sure that it isn't a hard enough process that we couldn't do it for most novel pages- barring the ones that don't have e-books or reliable word counts on the internet. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
1, A very large number of books would be functionally impossible to find word counts for, e.g., my most recent article A Spy on Mother Midnight; see the ebook here. 2, Even for works with plaintext ebooks, different word-counting software will produce different numbers based on, e.g., hyphenation, rendering one "true" wordcount difficult to determine.
I have no overwhelming objection, I suppose, to adding word count as an option (rounded to the nearest 100?) if folks find that a meaningful piece of information, but it's certainly not a replacement for page count. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

usual order of sections

I was surprised to see that there isn't a section on the typical order of sections with a novel page. For example, usually the background section comes first, then the plot summary, and afterwards themes, analysis, and then reception and adaptations. Does another page in the MOS address this? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Which cover image should be used in the infobox of And Then There Were None?

This issue is again up for discussion at Talk:And_Then_There_Were_None#Deciding_which_cover_should_be_displayed_in_the_infobox. Please visit and offer your opinion. External views would be most helpful in attempting to reach a consensus on this long-term contentious issue. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits

To explain the edits mass-reverted here:

  • [2] My first thought was that if the page is ever protected for some reason, the section edit button will not appear for some users. But there is another reason not to mention the section edit button in this manner: we shouldn't encourage anyone to click on it for any reason other than actually editing the page. Because they might end up accidentally making an edit. A third reason not to make this suggestion is that someone who copies an already filled-in infobox might forget to change some of the fields, leaving some of the information for Desolation Island in place in an Infobox for a different book.
  • [3] That didn't make a whole lot of sense in context. I'm also not sure that anyone following that advice would get a satisfactory answer.
  • [4] There was no need for the "Other Considerations" parent section, and it caused a confusing display, as it was not immediately clear where the Infobox subsection ended.
  • [5] There, I partially undid a change I had made earlier. The section was originally titled "Article body", but the first subsection was "Lead section". The lead section is not usually considered part of the body. Thus I initially changed the title from "Article body" to just "Article", but upon further reflection, it seemed better to rearrange things.
  • [6] That was a rearranging.
  • [7] Since the Infobox from Desolation Island is displayed as an example, I cut-and-pasted that article's current infobox, which had some differences from the one displayed.
    • [8] I blanked the parameter for the image caption, since the image is not displayed here.
  • [9] This was another instance of reconsidering my previous revisions. I had previously rearranged what was already there into regular prose, but part of it actually contradicts a statement earlier in the page: "Lists of dates and publishers of unremarkable re-issues, translations and so on should be avoided as they are generally no more than indiscriminate collections of information."
  • [10] A distinction had been made between authors and works. While it does appear that one is more focused on authors and the other is more focused on individual works, the former does have an entry for Sherlock Holmes. Between that and the awkward phrasing, it seemed best to just note both resources and let people go from there.
  • [11] That had seemed rather wordy, and the page name is self-explanatory.
  • [12] Google Images is a search engine, so it's more accurate to say that it will "yield" images, rather than that the images can be found there.
  • [13] I had recently seen an article where the plot summary listed all the characters, and then they were listed again in a Characters section. Since most novel articles don't even have a character section, it is difficult to set any kind of standard here, but that might be a helpful suggestion.

183.89.250.246 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago, making a small edit and seeing if others like the new version is a way to get consensus. I've been watching this IP's slow improvement of this MOS with great satisfaction— their changes have been careful, well explained, and on investigation I have agreed with each one and was glad someone other than me was taking the time to refine the advice here. I assumed the other page watchers felt the same. I don’t think a mass reversion was warranted, so I am restoring the changes. Are there specific changes that you felt were not improvements or don’t match existing best practices on book articles? If so, please edit just those, or raise them for discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with all of these except No 12. A Characters section, if present, usually follows rather than precedes the Plot. That's the most natural place for it, as a reference-type section. (Although not stated here, recent practice has normally been for the Plot section, which is probably what most readers want to read first, to go immediately after the lead.) MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I've also been watching the edits and haven't seen anything to object to. (I'm undecided on #12, perhaps that one should be discussed more widely.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that’s fair, I did wonder about the characters section too. I think the rationale for a change makes sense— when characters come after the plot, it does tend to feel completely redundant… but then, character lists often feel very redundant regardless. And I do agree that it’s useful for the plot to be the first section of the article, as the most likely thing someone is looking up. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, another reason I found characters-before-plot appealing is because I work a lot on books like The Monk where characters have complicated identities that are hard to gloss in a running plot, and I wondered if a change would help. But maybe nothing can make The Monk simple to explain, haha. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Such a re-positioning would represent a huge change to the guideline, as the Characters section so rarely appears before the Plot at present. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
True, and it doesn’t seem like there’s much appetite for that change. At best I’d describe myself as “tempted” rather than “enthusiastic” about changing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
This is the article that got me thinking about that. Another thing is that we currently say you shouldn't include every minor character, but in a detective story like that one, every minor character might be a potential suspect. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
That's a strong point against the change. Most (all?) current articles about novels that even have a character section don't have it before plot. I think there would have to be a compelling argument to change the MOS to be counter to current practice by the community. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I feel like there likely is a compelling argument to be made for this. If someone, perhaps an avid reader and fairly well-established Wikipedian, could go through articles with Character sections and point out several where it would clearly be better to list out the characters first. Perhaps actually make the change in the articles and see how much objection there is. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Should some of the text from Major themes be moved into Finding sources? Specifically this part, which seems more applicable to that section:

For so-called "classic" texts, many such sources are likely available, but it may take some time to read through them. You can use the Google Scholar to find citations for these publications online. Sometimes you won't be able to find a full-text version of a source through Google Scholar, but you may be able to find a citation that you can dig deeper into using the strategies listed at "Wikipedia:Find your source".

183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I see why you think this could move. But it's also important to remind people not to insert their own interpretations of the themes; it seems valuable to describe the kind of research that is expected for a themes section. Maybe move the specific tips about Google Scholar, but make sure there's still something here about the need for research / the warning that it may take some time to read and apply the sources? I don't feel strongly about the exact revision. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
There is a bolded reminder after that, which I would definitely keep in the Themes section. Looking at the page's early history, though, it's apparent that the Finding Sources section was in fact split from the Themes section, and perhaps this part was neglected. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, maybe the bolded reminder is enough -- it's quite strong! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward simply removing the quoted text from the Major Themes section. What I'm not sure of is what to add to the Finding Sources section. Specifically, what to say about Google Scholar. Since not everything it turns up is automatically a reliable source. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about the first item under Less reviewed or studied works. "Scholarly sources on the genre" doesn't tell you where to look. Perhaps the implication is that you should search things like Google Books and see what comes up. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"If you have been active on Wikipedia for six months and have 500 edits" doesn't seem like the best way to begin the Places to start section. Since that won't be the case for some people reading this. Perhaps this could start by mentioning Google Scholar, but note that some things it turns up will not be accessible to everyone. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Media_type in infobox

The guidance (recently rewritten but still saying pretty much the same thing) says it should include only the media types in which the novel was originally available. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this? For much of the 20th century, many books were released in hardback, and then a year later, the paperback would be released. The timeline isn't always that long anymore,[14] but there's still a delay so technically only those books released only in paperback should list paperback in the infobox. Is what we have the right guidance? (I notice that To Kill a Mockingbird, a featured article, doesn't list media_type at all.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I wondered about that also. This edit introduced that wording, but sadly we can't now ask the editor what her reasoning was. I would be fine with just deleting this subsection and leaving the Media Type field up to editors at each article. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. And that edit was made before there was a talk page, so if there was discussion, it didn't happen here. The infobox documentation doesn't say anything about that field except what the options are.
Before that change, the guidance read:

The exception to recording only the "first edition" information about the novel, this records the main formats the novel is available in. This gives main types (i.e. Print, AudioBook, e-Book) each followed by bracketed sub-types.

Print sub-types (Hardback, Paperback, Periodical)
AudioBook sub-types (Audio CD, Cassette)
Of course now we would also add ebooks, and digital for audiobooks. Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Such information almost seems like trivia. I removed "periodical", because the Publication Date subsection specifically says that it should not give the date of an earlier serialization. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I've removed this subsection. This is a matter best left to editors at each individual article. I guess the mere fact that an infobox template includes a particular parameter doesn't mean much. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. If anyone else shows up to object, it's easy enough to restore and then we can also discuss what it should say (original only vs. available). Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for scrutinizing this, I agree removal makes sense. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Novels/Archive_1&oldid=1262293388"