Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Userbox

 This user is a member of WikiProject Literature.

What do people think of this box? I just can't resist the urge to make new userboxes. This is just an offering; I know Warlordjohncarter offered to make one too. – Scartol · Talk 01:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I love it. Wrad 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Adding to my userpage now. Awadewit | talk 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page project banner

Wow. Freaky. I was just about to post {{WPLit}} when Wrad's {{WPLIT}} showed up on the project page. Spooky! – Scartol · Talk 01:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're on the same wavelength, or listening to the same muse, rather. Wrad 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] assessment

Wrad (et al), I see you're adding the project template. This might be a good opportunity for me to shamefully/lessly promote the script I developed for this purpose: user talk:outriggr/assessment.js.

Might I also suggest we take a "reasoned" approach to article assessment. Rapidly adding "stub/start" ratings on articles can have a rather deleterious effect, sometimes, on the writers who may be working them (as was observed during the "WPBiography assessment drive"). I'm not sure what the "reasoned" approach should be, though. Assess "B"s and higher, and leave the rest for later? Do we want to use the "importance" tag broadly, or just for "Top"-importance articles? These are questions that we should have agreement on before implementing too many talk-page templates. This is a smart group of people and we don't necessarily have to implement the "template first, ask questions later" approach. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony of creating the mentioned script, then talking about cautious use of templates.) –Outriggr § 02:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem with just tagging things as we come across them and then leaving little notes explaining our rating. If we do that, we are less likely to cause the eruption that WPBiography did with its assessment drive. In the end, I'm not sure how helpful it is to know that there are a certain number of stubs, starts, B's, etc. since everything below GA really needs a lot of help anyway. Awadewit | talk 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, the javascript is a bit over my head. Could you briefly explain what it could do for us? Secondly, sure, we can hold on the importance ratings. I've mostly been picking out the more important ones anyway, so I doubt anyone has been offended quite yet. As for the rating of quality, I've never heard anyone put up a serious fuss over something being labeled a stub, but maybe I've just been lucky. If you know of problems it has caused, maybe we should just do B or higher. I think one thing we can all agree on, though, is that the banner should be put on as many relevant articles as we can so we can see where we stand. Wrad 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Outriggr's script is really cool - it lets you rate articles and see their rating from the article page itself - no need to go to the talk page. However, having been a part of that WPBiography drive, I can tell you that people do get upset over the stub/start rating. Some people even get upset over the template itself. There was a near civil war over it with a few users - it was crazy! That is why I am suggesting the "attach and comment" as we go approach - the laid-back approach. I think users will respond much more appreciatively to that. Awadewit | talk 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, can you show me an example of an "attach and comment"? Wrad 02:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
See Irony, a key concept as you know. :) Awadewit | talk 03:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Alrighty then. Wrad 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, where put this?!) The javascript sets up a little interface on the article page. You can select a default template, like WPLIT, then press/key one of the "grade" links, which opens the talk page with the template automatically added and positioned. Just preview and save. Less mousing and keyboarding for the same result. I can provide you with the code you'll need to add to your monobook.js if you'd like to try it.
I don't know, maybe I'm being too picky and am just projecting, but I've been offended by stub ratings, and am not the only one. No volunteer who puts a few hours into producing even three well-written, researched paragraphs on a subject should be hit with the implied no-merit of a "stub" tag. Plain counter-productive.
I agree and disagree with Awadewit at the same time regarding "everything below GA...". Many fine articles are not nominated for GA, in which case they remain at the arbitrary "B" ceiling. Practically speaking as well, there is likely much less "editor attachment" to the broader articles that fall within the scope of this project; in other words, who to offend by a rating? Perhaps forget I mentioned it, but some guidelines for friendly assessment might be
  • use the higher rating when it could go either way (as Awadewit says, below GA, they aren't horribly informative anyway)
  • consider the article's current state against what it could be. Not every article can become a 7,000-word FA, although with the more general topics in this project, that's less true.
Yours in rambling, –Outriggr § 03:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrad or others, if you want to try the javascript, put this code in User:yourNameHere/monobook.js and refresh according to the instructions at the top of the that page:

// [[User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js]] <nowiki>
importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WPLIT|class=|priority=}}"];
assessmentDefaultProject = "WPLIT";
// </nowiki>

–Outriggr § 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a word on attach & comment: I think it's a good idea to start with "This article has been rated [whatever] by WP:LIT because…" This way there's less confusion for people who stumble into it later on. (I know our template's the only way a person is likely to find these comments, but I still favor universal stand-alone-ness.) – Scartol · Talk 13:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA noms

Awadewit needs reviewers for a couple of articles. They've been waiting awhile and are starting to go sour :) . Anyway, the articles are The Guardian of Education and Lessons for Children. Wrad 02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

It would be nice if WPLiterature could encompass all of the other projects related to literature - if we could be an umbrella project for WPBooks, WPPoetry, etc. I suppose that would involve turf-warring, though. It just makes so much more sense to me to have everything under the name "literature" and then subdivide it. However, I see the Machiavellian politics now. :) Awadewit | talk —Preceding comment was added at 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, too. My personal feeling on this is that the best way to get that sort of umbrella system is to gain respect by 1) creating good articles and 2) (and possibly more important) helping other projects out with their work as much as we can. Wrad 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

wee question... Can I assume of "Literature of Country" articles are within scope here? –Outriggr § 03:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so. Wrad 03:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about bringing in rhetoric and rhetorical terms? They don't seem to have any other home. Wrad 04:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about rhetoric and rhetorical terms. I don't see another project that would fit better, but it doesn't feel like a snug fit for us. (Interesting that there's no language project.)
Another question I have: Are we taking on individual literary figures? If so, I know of a few FAs we could add. =) – Scartol · Talk 13:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it makes sense to include rhetorical terms. "Rhetoric and Composition" is subsumed under many "Literature" departments these days. Perhaps listing a few would help us decide? Awadewit | talk 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hendiadys, Metonymy, etc. Rhetoric definitely spills over into writing as well as speaking. I think we should add it. I don't know about literary authors though, unless they have contributed heavily to literary theory. Is there an authors wikiproject? If not, then maybe. Wrad 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think of those as terms from rhetoric, usually; those are literary for me. When I think of "rhetoric" I usually think of Ciceronian terms. Awadewit | talk 18:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess we have different ideas of what rhetoric is. A rhetorician would claim those terms as his own, even though the are used heavily in literature. Wrad 03:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should be an umbrella project to Wikiproject Books and such, because I think our scope is different--more general types of articles. Bardofcornish 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There is an Authors WikiProject, but it only has two members and appears to be dormant. (And it's up for merging with other projects.) Of course, if we take on individual authors and/or works, then we'll have to differentiate between who is and is not classified as "literature". Messy! – Scartol · Talk 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That group has been marked inactive and merged back into the Biography group. I think there should be SOME form of overlap between their group and ours.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The original conception of this project involved not getting into specific authors or works, so I'd rather not cover those. There is a WP:Biography Work Group covering writers and critics. I'd rather just point people there. Wrad 21:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding the Bio Project helpful in leading me to authors. I'd think it'd be useful to include authors under both the Bio and Lit projects. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Something else that could be covered in here is themes in a literature. For example the treatment of landscape in gothic and romantic literature, or the Trojan War and the matter of Rome in medieval literature. For example, I would consider Troilus, an article on which I have done much work, as falling under this project as well as under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology.--Peter cohen 10:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literature peer review?

It's occurred to me that we might like to make a Literature peer review sponsored by this project. Many of us already handle lit articles at peer review, and it might be nice to have a literature-specific review here. Wrad 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA drive

I'm proposing that we start an FA drive. I think Literature might be a nice one to start with, but obviously I'm open to other suggestions. Bardofcornish 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Wrad 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would suggest working up to "literature". It is usually easier to write the "subarticles" first and then the umbrella article. "Literature" is such a broad topic that I would shudder to think how difficult such a page might be. Tackling something a little more manageable first might be good, especially since our members list a little short right now! :) I think even something like metaphor would be a challenge. Awadewit | talk 11:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I was proposing Literature because it seemed "traditional" to start with that sort of umbrella article. However, I see your point about the lack of members, and I agree that it might be easier to start with a smaller article. I'm open for suggestions. Bardofcornish 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What about plot? Basic, but still important. Awadewit | talk 21:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. Looks like it could use a lot of work. I'm definately not experienced enough to do this on my own, so if someone would like to help me I would be very grateful. I'll start making a list of things that need work on the article's talk page. Bardofcornish (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think the best way to do it would be to have each person involved tackle a certain aspect of plot, such as history, technique, differences between mediums, etymology, and so on. that way people won't get too overwhelmed. Wrad (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Literature

Is there a reason why this project is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Literature? I'm not sure of all the entries to be put in the table, so haven't added it.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope, Peer Review and Assessment wrt Troilus

I've almost going through the issues User:Awadewit suggested when Troilus became GA. Would people agree with me that as the article is about a title character in works by Shakespeare and Troilus, among others, and it deals with the development of the character through the ages, that this article should fall under WP:LIT or should only Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology apply? In any case, I am intending to push on towards the next point on assessment, so is literary peer review being established? And should I go for an assessment and attempt at getting to A here before going for Peer Review or after?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that is the perfect article for this project because it spans all sorts of genres. As to the point about A-review and peer-review, I'm not sure we really have an A-review all up and running yet, so I would suggest peer-review. However, since peer-review is backlogged beyond belief, you will probably need to solicit reviews. See this list for people who volunteered to be contacted. Awadewit | talk 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setting help

I'm engaged in some discussion of the nature of setting, here, and was wondering if I could solicit some input. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

I wonder if you would like to adopt the rather abandoned Wikipedia:Literature collaboration of the fortnight. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how free everyone is here about adding members, but I just thought I'd throw it out there that my Spanish Lit. class is doing a project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem and could definitely use some help! thanks--Abarratt (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC) (Particularly with Dictator novel which I am working on)

[edit] WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1970s in literature

This article was nominated for AfD 2/24/2008. If you'd like to participate in discussions, please comment here. Coffee4me (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Academy in New York City

Hi literature aficionados! We're planning a Wikipedia:Academy at Columbia University in New York City in a month or two, and we would like some input on the possibility of an article-writing drive by Columbia students focusing on the topic of literary history. For background, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 8#Neglected subject area needed for Wikipedia:Academy content drive by novice Wikipedians. See also User talk:Pharos#Wikipedia Academy for a proposal by someone from the Wine WikiProject. Thanks for your help.--Pharos (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What sort of articles are you looking for? Wrad (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles about authors, books, literary movements etc. that could be easily created and expanded by a novice, working from accessible library books and online resources. Basically, envision a computer lab full of students (without specialized knowledge in literature) working over a 2-3 hour period from online sources and whatever stack of secondary sources and reference books you might recommend. I think we're looking mostly for new articles (or I guess stubs might be OK too).--Pharos (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why no authors?

Maybe there needs to be a clearer comment at the top of the project page about whether/how authors fit into the Literature Project. It doesn't make sense to me that authors are not included under biography AND literature simultaneously. I also notice that on the A&E Bio project page, the Artists and Dancers sections contain the templates for their respective WikiProject page, but the Writers section doesn't -- why are we leaving this information up to the Bio people? And is there a problem with having authors pages linked under both projects? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If they really aren't getting covered, and if people agree to take them in, let's take them in. Wrad (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think many of them are being categorized by the Biography A&E work group, but that's easy to miss on the talk page and doesn't really seem intuitive -- when I think of literary authors, biography is not where I would look. However, I realize now that this project is limited to the technical side of literature. I was mistakenly thinking that the name implied an umbrella grouping of all literary topics. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where does the Portal tag go?

I was just informed that the Portal tag belongs to the Talk pages, not the main pages. But the instructions on our site imply that it belongs on the main page. What's the correct procedure for marking the Lit portal? And what are the limits of the Lit portal tag -- can we use them on authors as well? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "portal tag"? What does it look like? Wrad (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Literature Portal
It's mentioned on the main Project page. I found the portal guide, and it says to put the template on the bottom of the main article pages, esp. in the "see also" section. I think the person who "corrected" me was confused. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Me too. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Studying Literature

This is a discussion that I started on the wikiproject novels talk page,they told me it would be better if I moved to the literature wikiproject, contribute. DangerTM (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to comment on it?

Maybe we should define what comes under the heading of literature before we rush out and tag every book related article out there, some books shouldn't be added because they aren't very good in a literary sense, but others out there that have been classified as literature, don't deserve the title that has been given to them, maybe we should ponder this further, my talk page is always open.DangerTM (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To answer this, we include all fiction narrative prose. If it is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, it is notable enough for us to be interested in it. Bera in mind there are at least two major definitions of "Novels" (one that relates to "higher" literature and one which relates to all longer narrative fiction). We have extended our interest to short material (without changing the project title). Hope that help understand the project scope a bit, any questions please ask. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But just because it is on wikipedia, doesn't mean that it is good enough. Take Jane Austen's Edgar and Emma short story, that is the worst terrible piece of fiction that i have ever read in my entire life, and others will agree with me, but it is considered literature because all of what Jane Austen wrote is considered literature, and that is wrong, i would group Jane Austen's works into the category of pulp fiction of 200 years ago, read pride and predjudice, it is terrible, worse than terrible in fact, i would say that edgar and emma is better, and that is worse than bad is bad. DangerTM (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"Good" is a subjective term that we, as part of the Wikiproject and throughout Wikipedia, should never use to measure an article's worth. Notability is something with which we can judge whether or not an article has a right to exist and therefore be included under a particular Wikiproject, but just because you or I dislike a book does not make it any less literary. Pride and Prejudice and Emma, to use your examples, are literary classics and that cannot be disputed, unfortunately for some of us. :) Or, take The Last of the Mohicans, thought even when it was first published to be a truly horrid book; sometimes works become notable literature for reasons other than its sub par writing or predicable ending. It could be the first of its kind (LotM = one of the first American novels) or perhaps even a quintessential example of its genre (Emma = comic novel). María (habla conmigo) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"just because it is on wikipedia". As María says is all about notability, nothing about quality. In fact as I said earlier, "novels" can have different meanings, so can "literature". Literature can mean "high literature" a qualitative statement or it can refer to all types of written material in a certain field. (e.g. "it can be found in the sociological literature"). There are other meanings as well. If the output of notable authors of notable works are to be qualitatively commented on then the articles themselves should reflect this, but only from third part verifiable sources. We are to document the "literature" of a subject not to create it. (see WP:Notability, WP:Verifiable, WP:No original research for basic Wikipedia discussion of many of these issues. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to add my 2 cents, in order to declare something as "literature" or "good enough" for Wikipedia requires us to violate WP:NPOV. At that point the conversation ends. 23skidoo (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The negative version of this is similarly true. What if the work is "not good enough"? Also point of view. Notability is the test. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am merely asking if we should classify it as literature or as a text, it is not based upon how good the book is, it is based upon its merit in today's society. It is based upon how it affected the culture in which it was written in, and us deciding the class of the article (stub, start, b, etc) is no different from this, just add a thing to the template and some criteria, the only main difference is that it cannot change, ever. Maybe there should be a client project or a task force that is related to this, and we only take on tasks that are related to literature not novels, that is, books that have received enough merit from the community (not just wikipedia, but the whole community) that they can be classified as literature, and the definition of how we classify literature would be the accepted definition by oxford university. DangerTM (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Class" of the article (i.e. stub, start, B etc) relates to quality of the article and does not say anything about the subject of the article. "Importance" (or "Priority" in some wikiprojects) relates to the subjects relative notability which will include factors like the works impact on society (or sub-section of society). When you use terms like literature you need to be very careful that everyone in the conversation is working with the same definition, it may just be easier to avoid it, or to qualify meaning constantly. If what you are saying is that some further statement of literary merit is needed that my be needed. We would need to discuss how that might best be achieved. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, we would use the Oxford dictionary definition, which is: n. Literary production (engaged in literature) writings whose value lies in beauty of form or emotional effect; the books etc treatment of a subject. DangerTM (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the OED to hand but just from what you have posted the definition appears to have included a few different shades of meaning even in these few words. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well that is the main problem with trying to classify literature, which is why I move to use the OED definition as a base, but discuss the true definition within this discussion, it wouldn't be new research, it would just be a discussed and agreed apon, which is why a governing body would help. DangerTM (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Having search the OED online myself, I would like to point out that DangerTMhave cited. the definition out of context in order to bend the evidence to fit his argument. The full citation of this definition of literature is as follows: "3. a. Literary productions as a whole; the body of writings produced in a particular country or period, or in the world in general. Now also in a more restricted sense, applied to writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect. light literature: see LIGHT a.1 19. This sense is of very recent emergence both in Eng. and Fr." --chemica (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I for one don't see a need to classify literature as it pertains to this WikiProject. What is important is that we cover fiction, whether it be in short story or novel form. The idea of what constitutes "Literature" has changed vastly over the past one hundred years; On the Origin of Species, for example, is often found in the "Fiction and literature" section of bookstores although it's non-fiction and therefore out of our scope. Poetry is obviously considered "Literature", as well, but there's WikiProject Poetry for that. We should not confuse things by referring to our concentrated works as "Literature", since it's such a broad-sweeping term. We deal with fiction. < / two time English major > María (habla conmigo) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fiction is more of a sweeping statement than literature, literature only represents a select bunch of novels and works. And since Origin of species does not represent fact but theory, it is somewhere in the grey area of fiction and non-fiction.DangerTM (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What you're saying is true in many cases, but this is not the Literature WikiProject, it is the Novels WikiProject. As such, it encompasses all novel articles on wikipedia, whether those novels are brilliant or terrible. Wrad (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
literature only represents a select bunch of novels and works... no, it doesn't, and that is my point. Most of anything can be considered literature; that is not the case with fiction. What is not fiction, but is in book form, falls under WikiProject Books. What you seem to be looking for is a quality-based version of WP:LIT. WikiProject Novels deals with all novels and short fiction, regardless of whether one person may subjectively consider it "literature" or not. María (habla conmigo) 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are quite wrong, books can be anything in book form, but literature is of a different caliber, it has to be of literary merit, so some piece of pulp fiction could not be classified as literature, but as pulp fiction. There should be a task force or a sister project relating to literature specifically rather than books. And no, it wouldn't be a quality based version of WP:LIT, I have said it many times, it is not how good a book or novel is, it is how much merit the book has, how it represents the culture and values of the context in which it was written. It is a whole lot more than just "How good a book is" an in pulp fiction, it can be incredible, thrilling, brilliant, but it will still be pulp fiction, how ever you paint it. DangerTM (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
But this project isn't about books either -- there's a Book Project for that. This project is simply about a genre: fiction. Plus, you're ignoring the fact that literature is not defined as works of merit, but simply as anything written down. Second, even pulp fiction is gaining a lot of attention in literary scholarship -- so it passes the notability test. What you're really arguing is for "High Art" in the most restrictive (and perhaps outdated) sense. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Danger, I've felt the same way at times, and have tried to start a medieval literature task force for that time period. I've wondered if it might be wise to have some sort of project focusing on the classic literary canon. the problem is, the canon is disintegrating, and the definition of literature is becoming blurry. Everyone is going to have a different idea of what literature is depending on their perspective. According to the Oxford English dictionary, literature is nothing more than a body of written works related by subject-matter, by language or place of origin, or by dominant cultural standards. It just isn't a simple as you think. Back in the 1960s scholars generally agreed on what was good literature and what wasn't, but they don't anymore. I'd encourage you to join relevant wikiprojects and work on those articles which you consider to be about good literature. You're going up against a brick wall if you're asking this wikiproject to change. Wrad (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Danger, according to the OED online, your definition of literature is a restricted version of a much broader definition, viz., 3. a. Literary productions as a whole; the body of writings produced in a particular country or period, or in the world in general. Now also in a more restricted sense, applied to writing which has claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true. You and many others may think it's sad, but it is still true. Literature doesn't mean what it used to. Wrad (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, to look at it from my perspective, literary merit is no longer assessed solely according to the standards of wealthy white men.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Also a legitimate view. Wrad (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But we are not defining literature as anything written down, as it was said before "...applied to writing which has a claim to consideration on the ground of beauty of form or emotional effect." That is literature, oh and I was using the 1982 edition, hard cover, so the definition will have evolved since then, but it was the only definition I could find. LIterature is more than books. DangerTM (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, though. That is an old, outdated definition. Literature is now, in many cases, just books. Anything written. And that's according to the most current Oxford definition. The world has changed. Wrad (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Danger, why don't you start a task force to focus on Great Books. As I understand it, the Novels Project is open to all notable fiction. It's simply not set up to consider quality. Besides, your argument was already defeated in the USA around 1990.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd join it. Wrad (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, tell me how to start the task force and I will join it, but it still comes back to the entire basis of the argument, who decides what is great? DangerTM (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Task Forces I will not be joining, as in the literary traditions I study, beauty and emotion are less important than didactic and social value, i.e., literature is not meant to move us, but to empower us. Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Literature is meant to do all of those things, it could move us and still be crap, even though it is moving. DangerTM (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright people, the definition we used in university (English undergraduate, which I topped by the way) was Literature is text that is valued by many because, through beauty of form, it represents the culture and values of the context it was written in. Which basically means, so long as it is beautifully represented, and it portrays the culture and values of the time period in which it was written in, it is literature, if it doesn't do that, it isn't. DangerTM (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be what you used, and others might as well; but there are other definitions and it is not the most commonly used understanding based on the trends I see expressed above. Even if we worked with your "limited", "specialist" or "literary" definition it wouldn't affect the majority of what we do here bcause as a definition is isn't the focus of our activity. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is the literary definition, and maybe we should get to the root of the problem and ask, Why is it defined in this way?DangerTM (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is silly. We cannot and should not group works together because of subjective definitions, going so far as to declare what has merit and what doesn't -- I for one want no business in supporting a taskforce that would omit Jane Austen's work simply because one user says it's without merit. This is frankly opening up a can of worms and would lead to endless philosophical discussions about individual texts' "beauty of form" or what have you; we have no business doing that. The only way this WikiProject can remain NPOV is to create and utilize taskforces that group works by genre, something that is easily definable, not one person's ideas of quality. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, Danger, it is not the literary definition, it is simply a literary definition--and one that lost currency about 20 years ago. There has been a shift away from the study of the aesthetic and affective quality of a text to reclaim the older criteria of mimetic and didactic power, what might be considered more content-oriented analysis. (And I for one am less interested in a book's aesthetic quality than in its historical importance--especially for social groups that have to struggle to be accepted as writers.) This project, as I understand it, is focused quite simply on the historical aspect of literary production--which books have been notable, for whatever reasons. I assume it is perfectly acceptable to include in every article a discussion of the work's critical reception, pointing out (e.g.) that Austen's short story is not considered indicative of her talents, etc. But the assessment of quality MUST be done from a NPOV. So, this is your chance to dig into the critical scholarship and use that information to inform the articles you want to work on. I think we could all be happy with that procedure? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How long ago did you graduate? I'm a current undergrad and the definition is currently much more diverse than that. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • DangerTM. Sorry, this sequence is getting confusing. Wrad (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that DangerTM received his degree in that days when all literature departments (English or otherwise) were dominated by a sense that the literature defined as canonical are the only texts worthy of study. The goal of Wikipedia is not aesthetic analysis of the works in question. The novel articles are meant to present readers with an understanding of why people have found this texts to be important works. Like Kevinalewis said, if we begin to give personal value judgments about the works we are in violation of NPOV. --chemica (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume that it's fine to discuss critical reaction to individual works? Would that be an acceptable way to address questions of literary merit while staying within the NPOV requirements? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! Criticism and analysis isn't just ok, it's a must! As long as there are sources to back it up. I assume Chemica means saying things like "this is a truly beautiful work worthy of being referred to as 'literature'". Wrad (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said that Jane Austen's work didn't have merit, I just don't like it because I am from a different generation, I think that it really shows the culture and values of early 19th century England, which doesn't stop me from hating her work more than anything, but still...DangerTM (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the whole point of this argument, What is Literature? I have read most of Jane Austen's work, I did so in University, all I can say is that it left me cold, I did not enjoy it one little bit, which is more of an assesment of me rather than of the writter, remember, People read in search of a mind more original than our own. She was a very intelligent woman, and she was writting as a result of the times in which she was writting in, the context of her work is; She was on the periphery of the middle class, she wrote about what made sense to her. I implore everyone to read the novels, they will teach about the life she lived, and about the time in which they lived in. Which doesn't mean that I have to like her work. I am saying that I can respect her tallent, her grasp of English language was far greater than mine, I can respect her for the way in which her writting represented the times, but that doesn't mean that I have to enjoy the books that she wrote, I found them dead boring, but that is just one man's opinion. Oh and wrad, I graduated a few years back from English, and I can tell you, I may have not been from the genration that thinks that all of the old works (war and peace, etc) were incredible and the only things that should be taught, but my teachers certainly were. DangerTM (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the Novels WikiProject on Wikipedia? Wrad (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a thing. Enough navel gazing, back to work, nothing to see here... María (habla conmigo) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, is anyone on my side at all? It has been a long and open discussion, and I cannot see if anyone agrees with my point of view in the slightest.DangerTM (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be able to generate a more conclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, which is probably a more appropriate forum for discussing "literature". Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
DangerTM is right. Horton Hears A Who! isn't even a novel! And this is the whole : What Is Literature? For me, literature is something enjoyable. I found the Buffy novels real enjoyable. Harry Potter And The Prisoner of Azkaban took my mind. Also, I only read some classic novels and BAM! dead boring. But, just my opinion. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Danger, I find your concerns uninteresting at best and outdated at worst. Plus, they are outside the scope of this Project. However, if you take my suggestion to explore the critical reception of the works posted in the project and to add that information to the cite in the form of scholarly references, then I would be more interested. I look forward to seeing your contributions in this area. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] indipendence

How long has the word independence gone uncorrected on this article? EraserGirl (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada literature

Hi. This article of mine is currently in FAC. I think this is the right place to request a copy edit. Some reviewers feel the article needs more prose styling. Please let me know if any of you have the time for this. If you dont, please forward me to someone who is good at this and your help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wǔxiá to Wuxia

Requested rename on the article for the literary genre from Wǔxiá to Wuxia - see Talk:Wǔxiá 70.55.85.177 (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Vital articles

Any editor with a broad knowledge of literature is invited to take a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles and offer suggestions on how to improve the list of 1000 vital Wikipedia articles, as well as on the process of choosing them. It suffers from a severe lack of attention and POV editing. — goethean ॐ 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional children Categories up for deletion

Category:Fictional children has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Category:Fictional child molestation victims has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page.

Both of these discussions have been under way since May 13, so if you wish to add your thoughts please do so ASAP. Cgingold (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urtext

Hello, I watch over an article called Urtext edition, which covers a rather narrow topic--editions of classical music that attempt to recreate the composer's original intent. But there also seems to be a need to discuss "urtext" as a term of literary analysis and criticism. Such a discussion doesn't really belong in Urtext edition, so I removed what there was to a tiny new stub, Urtext. If anyone here has relevant expertise and could add more to this new article about what "urtext" means in the context of literature, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)