Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Add topic

Revision as of 21:40, 21 December 2023 edit AirshipJungleman29 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 35,245 edits GAR notice Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:33, 30 May 2024 edit undo Lowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs) Bots, Template editors 2,204,586 edits m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Archive 19) (bot Next edit →
(28 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 16: Should we make articles on certain fiction novels? Please chat me at my talk page. [[User_talk:Editor028\|My talk page]]-Editor028 == Best source for date of first publication == ~~== ''Waging Peace in Vietnam'' ==~~ For the article [[Icebreaker (non-fiction book)]], I'm interested in this book: Could some members of BOOKS take a look at ''[[:Waging Peace in Vietnam]]''? The book itself seems like it probably meets [[:WP:NBOOK]], but the [[:Waging Peace in Vietnam#Synopsis]] section seems overly detailed and possibly some [[:WP:NOR]] and [[:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK]] issues. The beginning of [[:Waging Peace in Vietnam#Confronting the legacies of war]] has the feelings of a possible [[:WP:C-P]] violation given the "In this chapter, we hear from the Vietnamese, ...". The pronoun "we" is also used on several other occasions throughout the "Synopsis" section in similar ways which has a non-encyclopedic feel to it. -- [[User:Marchjuly\|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly\|talk]]) 06:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC) {{cite book \| last=Suvorov \| first=Viktor \| translator-first1=Madeleine \| translator-last1=Berelowitch \| translator-first2=Vladimir \| translator-last2=Berelowitch \| title=Le brise-glace \| trans-title=The icebreaker \| publisher=Olivier Orban \| isbn=978-2-85565-478-2 \| oclc=461996651 \| language=fr}} A [https://archive.org/details/icebreakerwhosta00suvo_0/page/n7 1990 translation/republication] says it was first published in 1988. All other sources, such as [https://www.amazon.com/dp/2855654785 Amazon], [https://search.worldcat.org/title/461996651 Worldcat], [https://books.google.com/books?id=GWQHHAAACAAJ Google Books], and [https://doi.org/10.2307/2620392 a 1990 review article] say 1989. What's most reliable? I wouldn't care for the purposes of citation, but I wonder what year should be specified in the article text itself. [[User:Daask\|Daask]] ([[User talk:Daask\|talk]]) 18:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) ~~== Good article reassessment for [[Danny Deever]] ==~~ [[Danny Deever]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Danny Deever/1 \|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Spinixster\|<span style="color: #b22e3e; font-family: Elephant; ">Spinixster</span>]] [[User talk:Spinixster\|<span style="font-family: Franklin Gothic Medium Cond; color: #b22e3e; font-size: 10pt;">''(chat!)''</span>]] 09:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) :@[[User:Daask\|Daask]], I'd use 1989, though there is a case for listing both (or creating a footnote that explains the discrepancy). WorldCat alone is the source most often referenced on Wikipedia for dates like this, though WorldCat can potentially miss earlier publications. A good next step would be to request a copy of the title and/or copyright pages (if they exist) to corroborate the date. I try to use reviews where possible. [https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/66/4/812/2470666 This one] uses 1989. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; color:inherit; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar\|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:#871E8D'>czar</span>]]</span> 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) ~~== Good article reassessment for [[Power: A New Social Analysis]] ==~~ [[Power: A New Social Analysis]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Power: A New Social Analysis/1\|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:AirshipJungleman29\|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29\|talk]]) 21:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC) == FAR for The Slave Community == I have nominated [[The Slave Community]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Slave Community/archive1\|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?\|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review\|here]].<!--Template:FARMessage--> [[User:Z1720\|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720\|talk]]) 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)