From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels WikiProject
Information Project page talk Members talk → Article (pattern template) talk → Char. Article (pattern template) talk → Book infobox (pattern) talk → Short story infobox (pattern) talk Literature Portal talk Current discussions General discussion forum talk Novel categorization talk Work in progress Main work list talk Articles needed talk Infobox needed talk Infobox Incomplete talk New articles talk → Announcements (template) talk Auto Worklists Book → Novels (Auto list) talk Novels without Infobox (Auto list) talk Novels with InComplete Infobox (Auto list) talk Missing "YYYY novels" category (Auto list) talk Departments Assessment talk → Assessment Top priority talk Collaboration talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Task forces Short story task force talk Crime task force talk Science fiction task force talk Tools Main Article Template talk Book infobox talk Short story infobox talk Infobox Needed Template talk Infobox Incomplete Template talk Userboxes Project Userbox talk
edit · changes

Archives
pre January 2006 January 2006 – March 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – September 2006 October 2006 – December 2006 January 2007 – March 2007 April 2007 – June 2007
Current GeneralForum
updated 26 March 2007 — (changes • edit)

Contents 1 Documentation 1.1 Introduction to Discussion Forum 2 Discussions 2.1 The End of Fair Use? (for our purposes, anyway) 2.2 Another possible problem for (some) Novels articles 2.3 Its a book 2.4 Already Dead Ingored? 2.5 Question: scope 2.6 Lonely Londoners 2.7 Watership Down 2.8 Have two new articles about SciFi books to be added.

[edit] Documentation

[edit] Introduction to Discussion Forum

As some are getting a little confussed about where to go for General Project Wide discussions, and as other projects, (including the WikiProject style guide include a forum like this) I have established this for General discussion.

It should be used for anything project wide, and try to use the individual page talk pages for anything specific to that page. i.e. smaller issues.

Also announcements to the wider project user base perhaps should be made here. Not quite a one stop shop, but close.

Enjoy :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions

[edit] The End of Fair Use? (for our purposes, anyway)

Hi all. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this. If I'm reading that correctly, it appears that it may not be long before most Fair Use images - such as the majority of our novel cover art - are to be deleted. Now, I can see that discussions about this have been going on for months, and I'll admit a great deal of ignorance here - I'm not a copyright lawyer and never before concerned myself with the actions of the Foundation Board. I've uploaded quite a bit of first edition cover art, and sometimes it takes a good chunk of time and effort to locate these... I'm certainly not going to waste any further time locating more if everyone's just waiting for the Foundation's go-ahead to wholesale delete these images. What are everyone's thoughts? Is this the end of images for novel articles? I hope I'm wrong in my interpretation of this. -- Antepenultimate 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So do I, Fair use for std cover art is well established and I can see no legal or moral, or even commercial problems with. In fact quite the reverse. I also believe Wikipedia would be impoverished by it's loss. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've personally stopped uploading images of any kind to Wikipedia due to the ever-changing rules and am in the process of emptyiing my watchlist because I don't want to be distressed when I see all the images I've worked hard to upload taken down. Wikipedia is going to lose a lot of supporters because of this. A friend of mine was trying to say that the text is the important thing, but I have to counter that the Internet is a visual medium; images are a must, otherwise all you have is a screen full of text which I personally find very difficult to read. (Does this mean I always want pictures in my books, you may ask? No, because none of the books in my collection are also a light source). The frustrating thing is no one will tell me if Wikipedia has ever actually had any legal programs regarding images; for all we know the courts could say "who cares?" Incidentally has anyone looked at the spin-off discussion Wikipedia:Featured articles/Image survey? If I'm reading that one right, it would pretty much disqualify any article on novels published after the PD cut-off year of 1923 because it would require every Feature Article candidate to have at least one free-use image. Try finding a free-use image to illustrate a novel published in 2007. 23skidoo 12:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Along those lines, it is interesting to note that for the past two days, the Main Page Featured Articles' accompanying pictures have both been Fair Use images - the same type of images derided as mere "eye candy" by many in support of removing these images. It is a question of aesthetics, especially for the Novel articles - but 23skidoo is 100% correct, nobody is going to get excited about browsing 8,000+ articles that are nothing but a block of text. It does seem as though the Foundation Board is more concerned with phantom legal concerns than improving Wikipedia at this point. And it seems to boil down to the Board's desire to have all content be "freely available" - including to those who would use it for commercial gain. Therefore, Fair Use images would no longer be "Fair Use" if a businessman wholesale copied and pasted WP onto a CD and started selling it, I guess. To which I say: Isn't that the businessman's problem? And wouldn't he be the one with the legal concerns? Why do we have make Wikipedia the blandest website on earth just to keep some hypothetical, unlikely and lazy businessman from being sued? Sorry to rant, but this is all very depressing. Especially since it seems to be a decision that is already beyond discussion, as far as the Board is concerned - and certain deletionists are already chomping at the bit to get their chance to wipe out more people's hard work. -- Antepenultimate 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what the Foundation will do. I will miss the cover images, but we'll see. (A thornier issue is that any non-trivial plot summary of a copyrighted is probably justified, if at all, as fair use as well . . .). TheronJ 15:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh believe me, that's next. Once the images are gone, the deletionists (to borrow Antepenultimate's term) will be looking for something else to get rid of. As it is, I know there are those who resent the presence of "non-academic" articles in Wikipedia - such as articles about TV series, non-classic novels, etc. And they'll be quite happy to see articles speedy deleted under the WP:V rules that they keep brandishing about. I've threatened to quit the project a few times, and have now pared myself down to simply maintaining the occasional article I created, but before long even those articles are going to be adversely affected at which point it's just a waste of time for me to contribute. I know no one owns the Wikipedia articles, but people who have spend time -- for free -- working on these things are being discriminated against by the proposed and new rules, and the end result is people are going to abandon Wikipedia. All we need is for someone to start a rival Wikipedia (hey, even using Wikipedia content since it's supposed to be free) but with the attutude that no one cares about whether one gets image permission forms signed in triplicate by a lawyer, and you'll see people defecting like nobody's business. I would jump ship in a heartbeat if someone introduced a Wiki 2.0 along those lines because I'm so fed up with this place. I only continue to contribute because I have been asked to, but I no longer have the enthusiasm I had for Wikipedia a year ago. 23skidoo 16:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that booksellers pay to use the images, so it doesn't make sense for Wikipedia to worry about it. However, if an indivdual author or illustrator had a legitimate complaint, that would be different. Are we actually close to not being able to use fair-use images in the articles? PeregrineV 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

When I started my online L'Engle bibliography nearly a decade ago, I asked Dell (which was not yet part of Random House) for permission to reproduce small images of paperback covers. They eventually got back to me with the answer of no, stating that a) the lawyers were concerned that the cover artist might be entitled to compensation for the appearance, and b) that Amazon (pretty much the only online use at the time, other than the publisher's site) had a special arrangement to use the covers. In the years since then I've had numerous complaints from readers about the lack on images on the site, but I've never tried to revisit the issue. Obviously that was several computers (and AOL upgrades) ago, so I doubt I could get to the text of that old email now. But it seems to me that a lot has changed since them, on both sides of the equation. The book covers are on lots and lots of booksellers' sites and elsewhere, and I see no sign that the publishers have a problem with that. It seems silly to suppose that the use of a book cover image is okay on a commercial site, which indirectly profits by its use, but not okay on a non-profit encyclopedia. At the same time, though, there seems to be a bit of a tug-of-war in the larger culture between proponents of extreme lock-it-up-forever copyright and the more laissez faire attitude that has characterized much of the web until recently. As for a synopsis being a fair use issue, that's akin to the principle that you can't copyright an idea. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure a plot summary has never been considered a violation unless it infringes on the way the actual work is presented, i.e. with liberal quotations from the work itself. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another possible problem for (some) Novels articles

Not all novels are the subject of third-party scrutiny, yet they are still notable enough to have articles written about them. I'm starting to see Template:Primarysources starting to show up, and in theory this tag could end up being placed on a good percentage of the novels articles since, as I and others have noted, the articles themselves are about primary sources. The tag, thankfully, isn't being connected to the speedy delete craze that people want to attach to WP:V "violators". Yet. 23skidoo 15:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If I have the time, I like to include external references to links about the novel in question. However, considering the novel is the primary source, I hesitate to take too much from it verbatim. I feel that way about the cover blurb, unless it does such a good job of describing the novel that I can't improve upon it. And any analysis This novel about about man's deep seated fear of the number 13. that I would do would have to be "supported" by sources, or else it is considered primary research, correct? PeregrineV 22:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is, I just like to be as well referenced as possible. But with a sensible balance. We really do need to encourage more and more references and in-line citations. So the more we can find and add the better. So many of the novel articles on wikipedia are of a poor standard in this respect. It is a feature of the open editoring policy and few really understanding the nature of an academic writing style and how to do it. that is not to say we should produce dry prose, just well researched. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Its a book

people its a fiction novel, that has some christian believes in it. Get a grip and just enjoy it as a book, if you happened to gain spirtual from it good for you, if you think the spirtual stuff is gabage then just read it as what it is a fiction novel

Please sign your comments and, er, what are you trying to say, exactly? 23skidoo 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact what on earth are you talking about. This is so incomprehensible it is almost gibberish out of context! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the anon's edit history and this IP has never even contributed to any novels articles. Let's ignore it as gibberish. 23skidoo 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Already Dead Ingored?

I just made Already dead, and yes it is a book which a movie is in the works for it.

It is on sale at Amazon.com here.

OBEY STARMAN 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the page to Already Dead as per naming guidelines. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate and consider adding more content. Also, you don't need to announce new novel articles once you create them; if you have questions or concerns, however, this is the place to ask. :) María: (habla ~ cosas) 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question: scope

Is the banner for only articles on novels, or for anything relevant to novels? For example, fictional character pages. — Emiellaiendiay 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been wondering that, too, with respect to novel-related fictional places, fictional books, fictional characters, book series, key concepts (e.g. kything) and articles about authors themselves. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can indicate where we re not clear let us know. All articles on Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories & collections of same are in scope. Also subjects included in those narrative prose stories, so that means the characters, locations etc. But not the authors they are biographies and our of scope. Partly as they often author of plenty of other writing types. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So then fictional character pages are within the scope? Here's an example: Emily Byrd Starr. — Emiellaiendiay 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that it's very clear on the main page. Thanks. — Emiellaiendiay 07:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lonely Londoners

I just made an article. Please check it to evaluate notability and its beginnings. Please add any comments. I am studying this text in college as a broad humanities text, so it must be notable. Analysis comes from college lectures and other reliable insights that are difficult to source. And it is always important to note that literary analysis is in itself individual perspective. Also let me know how I can add images. LifeScience 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article in question turns out to be The Lonely Londoners and I have made a few modifications but it is in needs of more input indications for which I have added to the article talk page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watership Down

Under Cultural References, I believe that the Death Cab For Cutie music video for "I Will Follow You Into The Dark" has many Watership Down references. I'm not sure if this falls into the scope of that section though. The YouTube video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s2hPkTT1lA& -- 64.114.27.59 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Any references would need to be verifiable, ie. links made by thrid parties and references given.! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have two new articles about SciFi books to be added.

They are as follows

Jason Frost (author) And Paul Cook (author)

I'd appreciate it if anyone could get some background information on Jason Frost and his Warlord & other series or books (if any) as I only have the six warlord books and not much else.

As for Paul Cook, I did some recent cleaning up of the article and might add a page about his Book Halo. Which I have and read a while ago, so referencing should be simplistic and easy. Thanks, Nateland 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bio articles aren't normally our thing, (see WPP:BIO) but I have gone through and standardised the layout and format. Hope it helps some. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it did help. A LOT :-).

P.S. the Deathworld article on the deathworld series by Harry Harrison has some fromatting problems. I recently fixed the linking to these articles but as for the formatting. I'm not sure what needs to be done.