Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Books and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels |
Format of Booker Prize results tables
[edit]There is a discussion at Talk:2024_Booker_Prize#New_table_layout about a proposed (and implemented, for 2024) change to the layout of these tables. Comments would be welcome. PamD 00:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Algiers Motel killings#Requested move 17 February 2025
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Algiers Motel killings#Requested move 17 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
RfC on book review aggregators
[edit]A discussion is taking place that members of this project should be interested in:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels § RfC on book review aggregators
Any input would be appreciated. Οἶδα (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Release date and copyright date
[edit]Are we always supposed to treat the in-print copyright date as the actual release date? Copyright is not equivalent to the release - it can be copyrighted and then not released for some time, or the copyright date may be past when it was published. Even if it says a "printed" date, that may not be the release date either.
@Skyerise and I had something of a dispute on this and we both agreed this should be brought to wider discussion. Now, I see their point on the citation issue which initially brought up the question, so that's no longer in dispute, but the discussion raised another question about what the article on the book itself should say as the release date. I think that the body of the article on the book in question Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book) should say it released in August 2001. The publisher's website says it released in hardcover and e-book copies in August 2001, the LCC printed in the first edition has 2001 in the number (though the 2001 LCC does not exist in any form, but that has happened to me a few times). There are multiple reviews from 2001, not 2002. The copyright in all copies of the book is 2002.
Any thoughts? I have run into this problem a few times before, though I forgot on what article. It was something like the in-book copyright date was 2005 while the publication date on all other platforms was 2004. When something is released later in the year it is not unknown for the creator to push the copyright date up to the next year, which was allowed even when properly formatted copyright was required for a copyright to be claimed at all. Therefore I do not think it is a foolproof metric when there is other information that disputes it - any ideas on what a better metric for figuring out the release date is, and what should be done here or in other cases? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- When in doubt, ask what reliable, secondary sources do. Reviews from reliable sources will generally list the book's release year. The year is generally good enough unless there is a reliable source for the release month/date, in which case it should be sourced in the book article's text itself. If we have to fall back to a copyright date, I'd wager that we don't have enough sources to write an article on the book. czar 03:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Can any book review be deemed secondary for the publication date when they just regurgitate the print publication page? If you're just repeating it doesn't make the information any more secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- I believe that publishers directly tell reviewers when the release is planned, so the review can publish shortly before. I think some Advance Reader Copies print release information inside too. So it’s not always just looking at the copyright page, though I don’t know that we can tell after the fact where a reviewer got their info. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Can any book review be deemed secondary for the publication date when they just regurgitate the print publication page? If you're just repeating it doesn't make the information any more secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)