User talk:DGG/Archive 0.8

BOOKS and other publications archive

ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD, Speedy & prod, NPP & AfC, COI & paid editors,    BLP,            Bilateral relations
Notability,   Universities & academic people, Schools, Academic journals, Books & other publications
Sourcing,    Fiction,       In Popular Culture    Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Edwin Osgood Grover

If you have a moment and feel like it, would you mind a look here? I *think* the subject is probably notable but given when he lived, finding sources is a challenge. Some of the scholar results seem to fit, but others seem entirely unrelated. There are also a number of news hits, but they're behind pay gates. Know that they're not required to be publicly accessible to use, I just can't judge content to establish notability from what I can't see -- but thinking that quantity here might get past WP:PROF more so than quality. Thoughts? StarM 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough to tell. The NYT isnt substantial, 51 words, butt he very fact they gave it an article at all is significant. That he then published a long essay in the NYT Bk review is significant. The LA Times article is a signif ref. also. But the most useful general approach is something fairly new: WorldCat identities; best technique is to find a book by him in the regular WorldCat, then click on the author's name.: [1]. Significant author & lecturer. Meets WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn't know about WC IDentities, will have a look at it when I have a few moments. I had a feeling he was probably notable. ThanksStarM 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's new, technically still experimental. I love it--the info was always there, but this saves a great deal of work compiling it from the individual book entries. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about journalists

Hi DGG

Calling on you in your capacity as librarian, not admin. Do you know any good places to find information about journalists, rather than articles by them? I have just started a stub article on Michael Theodoulou who is an extremely prolific and I think well-regarded journalist. Any thoughts on how to find citations relevant to an article on him?

Thank you, Bongo matic 06:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this has always been a problem. It would be much easier --as in almost all professions--to find non-directory information about historical than current figures. There are two fairly comprehensive specialized indexes: Communication and Mass Media Complete from Ebsco and "Communication Abstracts" from Sage, if you can find them. Lacking them, the best is probably the type of general database one finds in a library: (multiple exact titles of each, with different degrees of coverage): Proquest (ABI Inform, Periodical Abstracts) ) or Ebsco (Academic Search, Business Search) or Thompson Gale (Academic ASAP) , or Wilson (Business Periodicals Index , OmniFile). All public libraries have at least a truncated version of one or another, usually available outside the library to residents with a library card. All college libraries have a relatively full version of at least one. Key magazines covering the field include: "American Journalism Review" and "Columbia Journalism Review" There are also a large number of regional newsletter type publications, but almost always everything in them will be of the nature of press releases. General newspaper indexes sometimes work, if you can sort out the articles they themselves have written. DGG (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Managed to get some access but wasn't able to find anything other than by the journalist. Maybe something will turn up eventually. Bongo matic 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you let me know by email what your library facilities are I can make some more precise suggestions. DGG (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge/move for OA

why not then do as you suggested, restore it and change the title, and then improve it to better NPOV. I'll look here for a reply. DGG (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be better if the two different histories were merged first, so they could be refactored. That might change the length of the History section which would affect the need for a separate article, especially if the rest of "Open access (publishing)" were cleaned up. But I don't really have time for a major rewrite at the moment. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if I do it, I;'d have to do it from the separate articles. DGG (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [2] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much it is going to help. I am not even sure that this should not be an exception to not being to some extent a web directory. DGG (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSB project

Hi DGG! Thanks so much for everything this past weekend -- I got home intact, if a couple hours delayed from the storms.

Here's my subpage on my DSB project -- the citations are formatted to link to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, so if you check the "what links here" from that article you can see the ones I or others have done already. The redlinks on my page are bios that weren't already written that are in the DSB; the bluelinks are bios that have been written since I started the project. There's also a dump of bios in the print version that Ruud Koot did. I haven't been writing down my progress, but I'm somewhere in the middle of the print "B" volume at the moment, so anything starting later than that would be helpful -- we could start keeping track of how many bios we've covered. Best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity the picnic never actually happened.

--the links seem to go to the print version only, not the online also. Additionally, at least some show the part in the main vol, not the added parts for those who have them in the supplementary New Dictionary of Scientific Biography I think it might be better to add the online links & complete the ones for the supplement first, before continuing alphabetically, so we know that at least some part is complete. (I recall you said the online version wasn't available to you at the beginning of the project). That the New Dictionary did not include a complete list of scientists with main entries in the entire work is one of the principal defects in that reference work--and one of the defects in our reference work is that the listing in "what links here" is not sorted alphabetically. DGG (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our online version is through a (subscription) Gale interface, so there aren't easy links to the articles (I get something like this), and even if there were it wouldn't be helpful to nonsubscribers. But what they are providing seems to be an HTML version, but additionally a straight pdf scan of the original print -- so actually providing the print page #s & reference is still helpful no matter what version it came from. The new DSB volumes are just tacked onto the end of the original set, from what I can tell (they start over with the alphabetization) and the "complete dsb" is just a scan of the whole thing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

grey literature subjects

Grey Literature International Steering Committee (GLISC)
European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation (EAGLE)
Grey Literature Network Service (GreyNet)
OpenSIGLE
System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE)

All of these are currently listed, and are close to expiring, at Proposed Deletion. Please review for copyright violations and to see whether multiple non-trivial published works exist. All that I've done is cleanup, to make the articles legible. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was sort of hiding from this. merges suggested, but I am not sure which ones to merge into which. Possibly SIGLE into System, and GLISC and Eagle into GreyNet. Some do have refs already I may rewrite & condense enough so that copyvio won't be a problem, but I've asked the author to try first. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't hide from us. ☺ Anything that you can do to solve the now-identified copyright violation problem is a good thing and would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website

A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd disagree with the first point - since the difference here is between Keep and No Consensus, which are functionally the same (i.e. the article is kept), even if I'd perceived a "desired conclusion" it would've been pointless to stretch the bounds of closing to reach it. If the difference had been between No Consensus and Delete, then there may be a case to be made that the closer is letting their own biases affect the result. As for the second point, you're actually backing my point up - "after removing irrelevant arguments and arguments contrary to policy". I admit that now I have heard Colonel Warden's explanation that I have slightly more regard for his point of view, but he could have made it far clearer. I stand by my discarding of the other two !votes, however. Black Kite 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I actually forgot that, as I'm so used to arguing against a delete-- and because we have really been discussing generally, more than about this article--so I have changed the wording. As for the second point, the question is of course when to call something irrelevant. Looking again at this article, the arguments you rejected seem in general relevant enough not to be unrelated to policy--or, like mine, simply said keep, without seeing the need to argue in any detail in an AfD where nobody had supported the nominator. So I therefore do not understand what you did, which is how the discussion got started in the first place. There are a few admins here, where instead I would have answered much more cynically: "You wanted it deleted, but knew that close could not possibly be supported, so you said non-consensus, to allow for a rapid renomination" DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think then, and I don't think now, that a rapid renomination would achieve anything. I don't think that's really the idea of "No Consensus", to be honest. However, I do think that some sort of merge of these disparate articles would be more encyclopedic - though that's not why I closed as I did. Black Kite 11:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look back, you'll find that discussing a merge was what i suggested also. As I said, we don't disagree quite as much as it looks at first. I think at this point you might have made a call out of annoyance at the level of arguments. I think much of the time when we admins do something wrong, we realize it to some extent. I've been impatient also; I recall once when I tried what i knew to be a shortcut, but one I thought would be accepted --that was the one time a close of mine reached Deletion Review (and was overturned). DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience at DRV, I've come to the view that there's a sort of hierarchy of arguments in closing AfD. I mean, it's perfectly possible to give a single reply that wins the argument outright. With a "keep", you do it by finding some sources, citing them by direct link or by ISBN and page number, and subjecting them to critical analysis that shows they're reliable. One person doing this at any stage in the debate is worth a hundred "delete: not notable" !votes, because all the delete !votes are explicitly refuted and hence null and void. (See Uncle G's AfD contributions for examples.)
The equivalent "complete win !vote" for a delete is linking the copyrighted source it's been copy/pasted from. But assuming it's not copypasta, the best "delete" is still a critical analysis of the sources. ("I found this, but it's a blog, and that, but it's a press release. Couldn't find anything else.")
In an AfD where you have !votes that give you a critical analysis of the sources, the closer can safely ignore everyone who doesn't give such an analysis, and DRV will still support them. Except in the annoying case where someone uses the currently-fashionable three letter acronym "BLP", in which case everyone starts to run around like headless chickens screaming "delete, delete!", apparently because of Daniel Brandt. But if Wikipedia made sense, BLP policy would be about removing unsourced material, which comes back to the same thing I was saying before.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi DGG,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources for short stories

Perhaps I can recruit your expertise for my help, if you have the time that is. I am currently editing a page on one of J.D. Salinger's most famous short stories, A Perfect Day for Bananafish. Not only do I have a decent amount of verfiable resources at my disposal, let's just say I have a personal investment in this subject. I'm doing my best to edit this article but another person is deleting my comments (of which there is no reason for, at least for which I can find via WP labyrinthine policies). Can you help? I don't know what to do here and don't want an edit war. There seems to be enough of those already around here... Jim Steele (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a starting hint for you on the talk p. there. It helps in these discussions not to refer to whether the other person understands or not, just to what is supported by the reference; it should be possible to do this without saying anything negative. Fortunately, there is enough criticism on salinger that you should be able to document--don't just use the handbooks, use the actual academic literature also. The key policy is that content is decided by consensus, which is not quite the same thing as argument, but if not resolved, you ask for another opinion. See WP:DR. You've asked me, I'll keep track. Unlike some topics people try to ask me about, I do know the story. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I think the article is getting better, I'm glad I've got an analysis section started and some good references. For some reason there's someone, an angry poster, who is just reverting every post. The problem with posts regarding literary criticism is that if the reader doesn't understand the story in the first place (and I don't think this reverter does) it's hard to reason with him. I mean, he's asking me to cite how Bessie plays an important role in Franny and Zooey, and the dialogue between her and Zooey IS the story Zooey.

Jim Steele (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009

The Tomorrow Code

I was surprised that you declined the above Speedy Deletion nomination.

The book is by an author who has no article, and although it may be in over 700 libraries Worldwide, about 600 of them are in the U.S.

Before putting this up for SD, I looked into it, and found:

3 Google Scholar hits - all from publishers of the book
1 hit on Google Books - stating that this is the author's debut book - and Kirkus Reviews (who published the review) publish their reviews 2-4 months prior to publication - and it was only published a year ago from what I can see (originally 28 Oct 2008, reprinted 28 Jul 2009)
0 Google News hits
0 Google News Archive hits

Looking at Google Web Search, a lot of the hits (I'll be honest, I only looked at the first couple of hundred or so) were mainly publisher sites, shop sites, etc.

Reading though WP:N and WP:NB, I can't see any mention that a sign of notability is the book being in more than 700 libraries in the world!

I am just curious to know your reasoning behind declining the SD - not that I'm saying that it is incorrect, but I do not feel that the stated reason is sufficient.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed deletion, not speedy.-- it wouldn't have been eligible for speedy. I'm glad you found the review in Kirkus. Kirkus is a selective book reviewing service, intended mainly for libraries. Like most book reviews of consumer-market books, they are prepared from proof copy so that libraries that decide whether they want to buy the book can have it on the shelf as soon as published. (The NYT does just the same). Apparently 700 of them decided to. I'm not a children's librarian, so that indicates a rather high demand. given that the author is from New Zealand, and that the book is set there, I'd say that the 600 or so from the US (or Canada) indicates an internationally known book, much more than if mainly NZ libraries had bought it. Kirkus is wrong, though, that it's his only book. It's his only one published in the US (by Random house, a major publisher). WorldCat shows 4 earlier ones, but they have less than 100 holdings, almost entirely in NZ--and so they are not notable. I very definitely do not think all children's books notable. Most are not. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your reasoning (and incidently, I noticed after I left my message that it was a PROD not SD, but forgot to change my comment here!). Although I am not 100% sure that this book should be included in Wikipedia, your reasoning also means that I am not 100% sure that it should not be - so I am inclined to leave it here! However, I will be keeping an eye on the article and if it's not been expanded (and if I can't find suitable sources to do such expanding myself) in a few weeks, I will consider taking it to AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a source

Did you see the latest on Kirkus Reviews? A pity. ^Bongo_matic 22:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they have fortunately revived. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: The_Advertising_Archives

RE your edit, if you have found some sources, please add them. I couldn't find any, hence the prod. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're even in Google, with this search, if you look down patiently and check the links to see where they are coming from-- e.g. this one from Cornell is the 41st item in the list, and there are similar in that position and lower. I have sometimes checked many hundred to find the right reference for Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Book Review

Hi, I wonder if I could ask you to have another look at the article Midwest Book Review and the discussion thereon. I admit that my own comments have not been as temperate as they might have been, but I have some real concerns about the peremptory actions of the user who seems to have assumed ownership of this page, and about the fact that it looks more and more like a press release from MBR. Thanks. Skookumpete (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I hope you are doing well. I have concerns about Skookumpete (talk · contribs) ignoring site policy - and arguing instead to attempt to re-mold the page in-line with personal opinion and talk page complaints - as opposed to citing sources. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I';ve made some comments on the talk p. there. If they don;t help enough , I am considering rewriting it. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are helpful, I will reply there. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hope was more in the direction of persuading you to rewrite some of those paragraphs. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Cirt (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I was trying to you a hint that your approach to this is in my opinion somewhat unbalanced, and perhaps a little over-enthusiastic. I'll look at it again tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for the advice. But I have to admit that I have put in a bit of time into researching the subject matter. However, if you could come up with any additional sources to add to the article - I would very much appreciate that. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad Cirt (talk · contribs) has put me in my place as a "random user." I guess my 40+ years as an editor and writer don't entitle me to contribute to Wikipedia.

As for "ignoring site policy," yes I have expressed opinions on the talk page, and yes I have learned about properly sourcing contributions, but the two changes I have recently attempted to make to the article itself were both in accordance with policy as I read it. The first was a simple, important, and properly documented fact. The second was the deletion of a lede paragraph that -- yes, in my opinion -- gave undue emphasis to material in the body of the article, in fact simply duplicating rather than summarizing it.

Cirt (talk · contribs) continues to insist that the weight given to the documented reception of MBR cannot be reconsidered unless a properly sourced alternative view is provided. This is special pleading. If I can give an analogy, this is as if someone wrote an article about me, and in that article was a "Reception" section (essentially repeated in the lede) that cited the three or four places where my work has been named in footnotes and bibliographies, all of which would be evidence of my importance in the literary establishment. Cirt (talk · contribs) would evidently argue that it would not even be appropriate to discuss the importance of that matter unless someone could come up with a reliable source that stated "Skookumpete is an insignificant hack." Let's get real. Skookumpete (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked for Skookumpete to present WP:RS sources supporting his viewpoints. He has ignored these requests and failed to do so. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above, I will look at it again tomorrow. Cirt, I've sent you an email. Skookumpete, I would like to do so also. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat

How do you make worldcat give you that list of "works by" and "works mentioning"? I can't seem to find where that is on there. Gigs (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is WorldCat Identities. You can get there directly at [3]; but if the name is common, you then have to select from a list of possibilities, and select the right one. Try James Watson. You'll get [4] Size of type is proportional to relative number of books and libraries holding them. He's the 2nd entry in the list. [5]] To see the complete list, click the small arrows "more". The number of library holdings given here sometimes combines all editions, sometimes does not. There's a list of translated languages at the right.

But there's also an indirect way, Find any one book by the person--I often do that by searching for title. Searching "Molecular Biology of the Gene", take the first edition listed, and you should get [6] Scroll down to "Details", where you see "Find more information about": and select it. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gigs (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book

DGG, could I ask you to give me your view on the suitability of this April 2009 book by Nation Books as a Wikipedia RS for the Hugo Chávez biography?

Just 3 library holdings worldwide – is that a warning bell? Am I missing any other listings?
The only scholarly review I could find says the author "succeeds admirably in presenting a gripping narrative, but his low standards in investigative reporting make the book extremely one-sided and unreliable." The author, Judith Ewell, is a professor of history and has published multiple books on Venezuela through university presses.
Foreign Affairs review – short and superficial, but quite positive.
Review in The Economist – positive, last paragraph ends "His arrest is part of a wider crackdown on the opposition, intensifying Mr Chavez's hollowing-out of Venezuelan democracy. This makes Mr Nelson's scrupulously unbiased account of the events of April 2002 all the more important. It should be read by all those who continue to believe that Mr Chavez is a worthy champion of democracy and the oppressed."

The low number of library holdings and the negative scholarly review make me think it is unsuitable. I've been told in the past that a book with 30 or 40 holdings was still a "fringe source". But I don't know how quickly library holdings build up after a book's publication. --JN 466 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this, as I was coming here for another issue. The other problem on Venezuela books/sources is that few libraries or journals carry anything not pushed by the left. It's not surprising that this book is underrepresented in libraries; no one except the left has pushed their POV, and no one cares about Venezuela :) At minimum, it's a mainstream sourced accounting of the "coup" (which by the way, was never ruled a coup in Venezuela, and once Chavez got control of the judiciary he had the ruling that it wasn't a coup overturned), supported by many other sources, well-received, and one that we should at least include for balance against the leftist sources now in our articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a preliminary, books on current political subjects almost always display a political POV. in fact , I don't see how there can be a neutral POV on this subject at this time--if there is a verdict of history eventually, it will depend on what eventually happens there. As for the specific points

Library holdings in Worldcat identities are very unfortunately not reliable--they do not usually sum up editions. You have to get the title, and search under it: JN, your guess was right: there are actually 3 listings for this book. the first shows 352 holding libraries, the second, 3, the third, 1. So the book actually is reasonably well held in libraries. As an aside, Google Book Search links for "find in a library" very often do not link to the principal record. And, btw, WorldCat in about 95% US and Canadian libraries, with a sprinkling from the UK and scattered ones elsewhere. As a rough guess for English language books on topics not of exclusively US interest, multiply by two or three.
amazon.uk lists it as 141,428 -- this is incongruous with a very low worldcat result, or a very high one , but reasonable in terms of the actual worldCat count.
scholarly book reviews typically take 12 to 18 months to appear--a book like this is likely to get more. The actual academic review so far is from a minor journal.
But this is not a scholarly book, and makes no pretentious to be one. Reviews of a book like this in The Economist and Foreign Affairs are at least as much to the point, as what academics might say
Unbiased tends to mean "agrees with my point of view". Look at the last phrase of that quote from the Economist, which makes a remarkably explicit declaration of the POV. Neither reviews for frankly political journals nor for academic ones are free from having a POV.
We should indeed try to represent all responsible POVs, and this is one of them. Sandy is certainly right there, and it would justify using something considerably less respectable than Nation Press.

In other words, yes, the book can certainly be used. Link to all the reviews. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the broader education than we asked for ... you come in handy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I echo that. :) DGG, can you tell me where you click to see the holdings for the other listings? Starting out here, if I click on the first listing of the book, and then (further below at "Find more information about") click on "Go" to the right of the dropdown menu with the author's name, that takes me here. If I start off with the second listing (which is actually the e-book) and then do the same, I end up here, which I don't know what to do with. If I start with the third listing, clicking on "Go" takes me here, and I am again at sea. Even if I click on the top Nelson in the list, I only end up here again, with just 3 libraries listed. What am I missing?

Another thing that that has stymied me on occasion is that the site only shows an author's most widely held works. Sometimes I've wanted to look up one of a prolific author's more obscure titles, but the list of their works can only be extended once and then ends. Is there a way of looking up how widely held a particular title, rather than author, is? Thanks for your help. --JN 466 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

after getting that first page [7], click on each of the titles in turn. When you get to first one, [8], midway in the first screen there's a section: Find a copy in your library. It gives a place for your zip code, and right under that it says (in this case) "Displaying libraries 1-6 out of 352. That 352 is the count. Do similarly for the others. I think you missed spotting that line, which is not hard to do: on my computer, it's in small light grey type. WorldCat has an interface that appears chosen for appearances, rather than function. They know what I think of it.

The method for finding all the books of an author is to find any one of the works in the regular world cat search page [9], usually best done by title if you have a title of any one book, and then click on the author's name. That gives you a page which will list everything by him in all its editions, including articles in JSTOR journals and book reviews about him published in JSTOR journals. Use the Authority identities page as a checklist, not the first search. I am very disappointed in it--they need a better algorithm; I used it for holdings myself a number of times in discussions here, until I realized how incomplete it was. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. The problem is (as I suspected) due to our difference in geographical location. The site does not know where I am -- I always get an orange box telling me that the site can't recognise my location. I have never bothered to tell it, because I am not really looking for a nearby library that has the book, just for statistics. I'll probably need to register an account; then I should be able to use your enquiry method to get the "1-6 out of 352"-type data for any given book -- or rather, any individual WorldCat listing of a given book. My apologies to Nelson (and to you, Sandy) for having doubted the validity of his book; I'll check over and update the listings on the Hugo Chavez talk page. Many thanks to you, DGG, for clearing the matter up. --JN 466 08:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash from the past: User:Digitalcollections

I fear that this is in fact a role account. After a very long quiescent period, they've slapped links into half a dozen or so articles today. Could you reinforce your excellent warning of two years ago? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links are appropriate, but some could have been added at better places. . Please let me explain again on their talk p. I should mention I have recently been contacted by the head of collections development at another university, who quite sensibly wanted to find out in advance how to do it. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained it to them, and will follow up. Let them have a chance to fix these voluntarily. I remind you that if we do block the username, we'll have to keep watch for what one is made use of next, so it is better to get cooperation. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Worldcat

Dear D - you weighed in recently on Worldcat's limitations; I added a section on this to the Worldcat article, only one sentence, but it looks like there's a lot more that could be said. There's what looks to me like a blizzard of info on the web, including maybe licensing issues. (As an ordinary user I've been stymied by its insistence on starting from what it sees as my zipcode and hanging for hours after trying to cross the ocean. This problem has been talked about on WP and on some blogs, but it would be nice to get some reliable sources on it). Thoughts? Novickas (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

problem on a topic like this is, that everything that is formally published is out of date. I'll keep this in mind, though, as I see anything usable. (you can eliminate the zipcode problem by making an free account, or by going through your local library--most of them have a worldCat portal. I also find Safari is best at getting zip codes right, especially if you use igoogle as the default web interface.) DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try those suggestions. Yes, that WC info quickly goes out of date, especially in terms of participation, is clear. I guess I was hoping you could point me to some library journal articles that discuss other (possibly long-term) difficult aspects of Worldcat as a global integration of library holdings - cataloging system differences, transcription of other alphabets, personpower/cost issues, etc.

Re the Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija - I'd appreciate your thoughts on the issue of whether the raw number of holdings in Worldcat is a good standard for a work's notability, since this may come up again. IMO holdings by uni libraries and national libraries [10] carry extra weight, but don't know how well this angle of argument is received on WP. Best, Novickas (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'll start looking for those things--but as you know, the problem is really the same as the problem with uniformity in cataloging rules in general. The safest search is often by title, not author.

In my opinion, The number of holding for a work in Worldcat is a valid measure of comparative importance importance for works in he same genre and time period, for those topics and languages likely to be heavily held in US/Canadian public and academic libraries. when I use this as a measure, I usually give a qualifier--as for example, for a 1930 UK children's novel, that even a few dozen copies are held in the US is a measure of high importance, because public libraries do not generally keep older books of this sort, and the UK/US children's book market is different; for a US current children's novel. For a 2008 US children's novel, anything under 200 or 300 copies is a trivial holding. And this is the problems with using academic libraries as a count: by and large, they collect only academic books. Here it depends on field and language even more critically because the numbers are lower: worldcat holdings for an academic book in Turkish on any subject except Turkish history & politics would be a proof of importance if there were more than 2 or 3, as almost no US/canadian libraries collect substantially in this area and language. A negative or very low result in WorldCat is significant if it is a subject that would normally expected to be heavily held.

National libraries are in my opinion, meaningless, except for a negative result from the home country, because of required copyright deposit. As a supplement to worldcat, I use karlsruhe: [11]. It has its own peculiarities. I have mine set for the German, French, Italian, & Spanish catalogs, adding others as needed. (I search BL separately). For an academic book in the recondite areas of the traditional humanities, I usually find it doubles the count if added to Worldcat. worldCat is making a serious effort to add national libraries, but Karlsruhe will still be needed for the other academic libraries in those countries. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Campus (CCNY)

Hi DGG, regarding the declined prod for this article - I searched for refernces from 3rd party sources as per WP:BEFORE, but could find none that provided sufficient in-depth coverage to confer notability. I'm concerned that the prod has been declined and the article still sits unsourced and possibly unnotable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since so many people do not look, it speeds things up considerably if you say you did in the nomination, so we don;t duplicate work. I'll look myself to be sure, but at the very worse what you would want to do is propose a merge into the main article on the college, or the subarticle on student publications. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science Vision

I would certainly like to be tolerant of this one, too, but the problem is that I could not find a single reference. I'd have left it alone if there had been a link to a homepage (or if I could have found a homepage), but I couldn't. It's not in JournalSeek or WorldCat. Perhaps you have other ideas how to find sources? --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh University Press

Another question: somebody has been adding several articles on UEP journals. Some of them are very new (2008-2009 or even 2010). Would you regard journals from this publisher immediately notable? I have prodded the 2010 one, but not the others yet). --Crusio (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will need to look at them individually. I think it would depend to a considerable degree on the sponsorship & the editor. a journal published by a leading international society or with a very famous ed. in chief might be immediately notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are this user's contributions (now blocked for promotional username). --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fortunately, most are continuations of established journals. I'll follow up with the necessary redirects. I am thinking of putting in a note about contacting us or the Working group in advance in one or two of the most read email lists, which are the main way librarians & publishers communicate. I can make it unofficial--a personal update on what I;ve been doing the last few years. I'll do a draft. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most are indeed fine and I have them on my list for some cleanup/categorizing/and such. Probably tomorrow... A note on these lists would be good, could save everybody some work. I have no problem with being included in such a note, of course. --Crusio (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)== Google Scholar and Academic Libraries ==[reply]

You may be interested in this article. I don't know what to do with it... Seems like OR, but there are references. The title probably needs to be changed, though. --Crusio (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a little on the naive side; The writing style makes it seem more OR than it is, but it's unbalanced. I'll leave some comments. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability proposal for deletion of articles on reference works

Given your background, I believe your reasoned input could be invaluable for the discussion currently brewing at WP:VPP in the thread Wikipedia:VPP#Notability_requirements_for_reference_books_and_other_reference_materials.

My particular reservations are expressed at Wikipedia:VPP#Need_for_the_work_to_have_a_review.3F, but I'd defer to your expertise in this area. Jheald (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there; I'll be there again. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Enemy of My Enemy (book)

There has been some disagreement at Talk:The_Enemy of My Enemy about whether/which "book reviews" count under criterion #1 of the notability guidelines. I'm not sure what consensus is on this point. You seem quite knowledgeable about such things. Perhaps you could clarify, or give your specific opinion? Thanks, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 06:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of course book reviews count. Not only do they count, they're the usual way of establishing the notability of books. Almost by definition, they're the main form of writing about books. True, for many sort of books this makes it very easy to show them notable. But if reviews did not count, it would be very hard in most cases to show any as notable, except only the famous ones. And one of the few things generally agreed on about notability is that it is much less than famous. Like all sources, it is necessary for the reviews to be substantial reviews from reliable sources, sources that employ editorial control and discrimination. (For example, it is normally agreed that home town reviews of a book by a little known author are not discriminate, because a local newspaper will feel obliged to cover every such book regardless. It's also agreed that the mere inclusion in a list of books received, or books for christmas, or the like , is not substantial.) The publication I review reference books for, CHOICE, makes a considerable effort to be highly selective & is one of the sources where even a single review proves notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability; Differences in standards for books and authors

Hello. What might your view be as to perhaps revising the relevant policy to reflect the same standards for notability of books that we use for notability of authors? An example, and the reason that I came to think about the issue, is reflected in my discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous argument, actually. We need to do some work on the book notability rules, but not in that direction. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011

books

DGG, you were involved in a discussion on bibliography here a long time ago, and you might be interested in this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about ballroom dancing. I look forward to reading your comments. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1#Category:Science writing. Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

Category:American novels by century

There is a case to answer that Category:American novels by century is over-categorization. It seems to have been set up last year following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 15#Category:American novels because of the need to diffuse a large category. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature#Categories by century, country and genre. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books books books

Hello DGG, evil deletionist ogre here. I've just noticed this list of publications. The preamble is so peacocky that it's unintentionally amusing. I can deal with it in a twinkling, but no harm will be done if I leave it for another 48 hours. What I'm wondering about is not the preamble but the table that follows it. Its content seems factual and I suppose is verifiable, but even before I start to investigate I know that it's incomplete, simply because I have a copy of at least one Steidl/ICP book that doesn't appear in it. I have no appetite for the work needed to update the table and keep it updated. Neither can I see that such work is more merited here than it would be for any number of other publishers, publishing collaborations, or "imprints". And yet this arguably analogous though "standalone" list hasn't been trotted off to AfD. Any ideas? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they are the major publisher in their field. But we generally do not have such lists; Perhaps we should add articles for the notable books and make this a category. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible words, as always. Yes, we should indeed add articles for notable books, but notable photobooks rarely get paragraphs within articles here, let alone their own articles. (For that matter, even those that are in print often go without any comment at Amazon.com, the average quality of whose comments surprises me ... and thereupon saddens me: all that unpaid effort going to help a commercial monopolist whose packaging policies clearly imply a hatred of books. But I digress.) Ah well, here's my first bash at transforming this from a puff piece to a decent article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR

Why does it overstate notability, in your view?--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because too many thoroughly non-notable books get two book reviews. This especially applies in the academic world, where almost all books from all significant publishers are eventually reviewed, but most of them are routine. It would make more sense to combine them into articles about their authors, and that will work for full professors, for whom I have successfully argued WP:AUTHOR. But I could also argue WP:AUTHOR for associate professors in the humanities in highest quality US universities, all of whom will have necessarily written 2 books. We don't usually accept articles on associate professors otherwise--the citation record of equivalent people in the sciences is usually considered short of the borderline; I think we should, but I have other priorities.

The problem is fundamentally the same as for elements of fiction. WP:N correctly says that passing WP:N (and WP:NOT) doesn't necessarily mean there must be an article, if the material can best be handled otherwise. There is rarely any real need to split off a full article for a character, but in practice anything less gets reduced to an uninformative list. Given that the only effective process is AfD , the only protection is a full article, and I defend the articles there on that basis. The same goes for books. Articles on book of all types are usually very cursory, and best combined. If not, they are often much too expansive, promotional of the authors ideas-- sometimes to absurd lengths and detail. It is very hard to reduce them, unless the person who wrote them has left & nobody else cares. Promotionalism is a real danger to Wikipedia; we have a problem getting new editors, but what makes it worse is that too many of the editors we do get are here for promotional purposes. Whether a promotional article gets deleted depends upon which admin sees it--there is no consistency in applying the standard; indeed, there is no consistent standard to apply sat speedy, and at AfD anything that does not attract widespread attention is a toss-up.

One of the problems with promotionalism is wildly inconsistent coverage of borderline subjects. We would do much better to have a rule, and to work on filling in the gaps. I would be glad to have articles on all reviewed academic books, but not just on the ones which promulgate particular interests. but that is impossible to accomplish here without special projects dedicated to filling in the gaps. (Anyone want to join me in going systematically through Choice's Outstanding Academic Books of the Year, and add every one of them--only about 5% will already be in Wikipedia , and also add their authors--only about 25% will)

I consider my position open to further discussion; my view is not necessarily fixed. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of books

I would be glad of your advice on assessing notability of books. New user Demossoft (talk · contribs) has input a string of articles about books by a Lebanese author, Lina Murr Nehmé:

1453, Mahomet II impose le Schisme Orthodoxe (Worldcat shows it in 18 + 12 + 10 = 40 libraries)
Baalbek, Monument Phenicien (5 libraries)
La Douloureuse Passion de Jésus-Christ (5 libraries) (she provided historical notes)
Prophéties de la Bible pour Le Liban Moderne (Arabic version in 1 library)
Le Liban assassiné, lettre ouverte à Monsieur Sarkozy (not in Worldcat)
Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand? (not in Worldcat)

I have told him about WP:BK and about COI; others have PRODded two of the books, and Demossoft removed the PRODs with (not unreasonable) requests for more time.

The suspicion of COI and promotion makes me want to look hard at notability. Figures to the right are the number of libraries shown in Worldcat as holding the book. On that basis, the first passes the "dozen libraries" threshold in WP:BK#Criteria, but the rest do not. Depending on whether more references are produced, I am considering an AfD for all the books except the first. My questions are:

Is the Worldcat library count the right measure to use against the WP:BK threshold?
Any other ways to assess them, bearing in mind that they are in French?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, she is perhaps notable as an author, since two of her books are in many but not all of the major French university libraries, so an article on her and a merge seems reasonable. There's even an English language source, [12]. I agree with you the writing articles for even the really minor works indicates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Normally people even with COI either write the author article first, or an article on one of the books, usually the most recent. As for library holdings, Worldcat gives the same as the French university Union Catalog, sudoc, [13]; I am not aware of any union catalog for French public libraries, and these are in any case, not the sort of books one would expect to find there, I often look for an additional indication of the importance of French academic books from German academic library holdings, which are more likely to do well than the US. I use the superlative German-based international union catalog, Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK , which has an English interface, [14]. In this instance, almost none of her books are present there. I think however a thorough search would probably find reviews of her books--I think a thorough search would find reviews of essentially all academic books from major publishers, and if we took BOOKS literally every notable author would have some or all of their books separately notable, as would many non-notable authors. I just thought of a way to summarize my view of that guideline: books, as well as sports and popular entertainment, are among the things over-covered by the press, especially the coverage of academic books by academic journals, and so the GNG for these subjects is way too broad. To the extent Wikipedia:Notability (books) incorporates it as criterion 1, it is way too broad. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try to explain things to the author. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See a review of her Mahomet book on a website, including a short interview with the author. This makes the thesis of the book look interesting although possibly fringe. The book is translated into both English and Arabic, which suggests there is a publisher who thinks the book will find readers. Surely there are reviews by historians if anybody knows how to find them. Not sure if this onefineart.com web site is a reliable source for anything but it could be an external link. Combining these separate articles on the books into one article on the author is probably best until the additional sources are found. The publisher of the Mahomet book, Francois-Xavier de Guibert, looks to be a mainstream French publisher. they are described as a Christian publisher in their small article on the French Wikipedia: fr:Éditions François-Xavier de Guibert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they're a mainstream publisher. As I cannot source by myself everything submitted to Wikipedia I tend to work on sourcing the ones I think most notable/important/encyclodia-worthy, or articles where interesting questions are raised in the AfD. And I regret to say I no longer have remote access to most of the humanities databases, so I need to be even more selective. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you did have access, what humanities database would you check? EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wascana Review

David, if you have a moment I wonder if you could please take a very quick look at this for me? It's only stub I've drafted, but it's way off my normal area for referencing and I don't think I can assert it's notability. If I'm wasting my time with it, don't hesitate to let me know and I'll delete it. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly an academic journal, but a literary magazine published from a university. I changed the stub & category to fit, and added some information. There is no special criterion for such magazines, but it is included in JSTOR and that should be sufficient for notability. It's probably indexed in a few places also, but I didn't check. If you can find the earlier editors, they should be added, because all of them are almost certainly notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in law

DGG, can you expand on your decision about Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of important publications in law? I'm not sure what you mean by "the problems are related". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had marked it for speedy as uncontroversial maintenance. Nothing about the "Lists of publications" is uncontroversial. I commented that the problems of reconstructing a proper article are related to the problems with the others articles in that group. If you take it to MfD, I shall argue that the page ought to be developed, not removed, and then restored to mainspace under one or another title. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree that this article should be developed. However, in its existing form it is an abortion. Curb Chain created this stub instead of userfying List of publications in law or putting it in the incubator. I would like to see it done right, and done by someone who cares about the content. The entry in WikiProject Science pearls is an embarrassment and may actually interfere with a proper revival of the list. If you see a better way of dealing with this mess, I'm open to suggestions. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Oh sage master of dilemma resolution. I suggested that Rock tag this article for G6CSD. In October it was nominated for deletion, deleted, and went through DRV which upheld the deletion. You restored the article for the DRV (temporaily per your edit summary). During the DRV or shortly after the DRV, User:Curb Chain moved it to his user space. Then subsequently moved it twice with new names into the Science Pearls project where it resides at present. Curb Chain has no intention on working on the article (stated in a edit summary) and apparently no one in the Science Pearls task force is interested either. There's not much (an never was much) in the list in its current state. If someone was starting this from scratch, it would probably be significantly different than it is now. So here's our dilemma. If someone moves this article out of the Science Pearls project to the mainspace, they would just be recreating a deleted article verbatim without any discussion. If it remains in the Science Pearls project space, the likelyhood that anyone will know its there and work on it is slim. And until someone really spends some time improving it, it really can't be moved into the mainspace over the deletion decision. All the parties here really believe in these types of lists, so this isn't a deletion/inclusion issue, but merely situation where we have an orphaned article unilaterally moved into a project where no one is really interested in it. What do you suggest? Leave it isolated in the Science Pearls project, delete it, or more it to the mainspace had hope no one notices? --Mike Cline (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can reasonably want to move it to mainspace now (& to hope no one notices in this case would be absurd.). We could certainly move it to my user space, except that it is not really one of the articles I want most to work on, though I have been known to work on articles I don't really want to just to show off my abilities to do the unlikely. But if we remove it altogether, it is even less likely to be worked on than with any of the alternatives. The solution then is to find someone to adopt it. One of the intrinsic limitations at Wikipedia is there is no way to get anybody to do anything unles it amuses them. Perhaps someone will see this and volunteer; otherwise, I'll go look for someone. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be delighted, but amazed, if you find someone. It's a curious fact that many of these bibliographies get a lot of traffic but little editorial support. I revived two deleted lists, Bibliography of biology and Bibliography of sociology, that could easily have been protected from deletion by a few good references - but no one did. A few other lists may owe their survival of the recent AfDs to members of this project who provided the references. However, all of these bibliographies had plenty of good content already. The idea of starting a list from scratch, for a field that I know little about, does not attract me. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Thanks. Your on the case and things will work out. You taught me patience on WP so I will be (at least on some things)! --Mike Cline (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012

Please comment on Talk:Commentary (magazine)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Commentary (magazine). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013

Library count

I was wondering how one finds out how many libraries stock a particular author or book. I notice that you reference that in a couple of AfD nominations. Thanks, Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the way is with [www.worldcat.org WordCat]. Search for the book, isbn is simplest if you know it . Click on the book entry and look down. Best way to find all books by an author is to go midway down to the "Find more information about" selection box:. " Caution: Coverage is almost entirely US & Canadian public and academic libraries, some major university libraries elsewhere, with most academic and some public libraries in the UK, & some public libraries in Australia and New Zealand. There is no single convenient technique for elsewhere, best gateway is, VZBl, then see Special:Booksources. Caution2: Some types of material, like popular sex manuals, esoterica, and devotional literature are not well represented in library catalogs. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Library holdings

Hello DGG! Thank you for your note at my talk page, I appreciate the feedback. I will look at those articles you listed this weekend and do some cleanup on them. I'll also try to be more mindful of promotionalism in the future. I'm curious about your technique of judging notability by library holdings, as in the Jedediah Bila AfD - it seems useful especially for pre-internet authors. Do you use Worldcat to find that information? How many libraries do you think are necessary for notability? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest academic libraries buy anything else. Third, it covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book-- mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field) As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures. For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.

The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.

Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at [15]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your input requested

I am evaluating whether to tell McKinsey we should improve the article on the McKinsey Quarterly and/or create one on the McKinsey Global Institute. Both are notable, but their sources I think will be mostly about the information they have published, rather than about the institution itself. I have looked at some of the FA/GA articles in WikiProject Journals and WikiProject Magazines and some of them rely heavily on niche sources and/or primary sources. I was wondering if you had any advice in this area or knowledge of where sources can be found. Are there any publications that provide thorough reviews/profiles of other publications themselves? I'm not sure, but I thought this was an area you were relatively active in. CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm reading Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). It seems to me that the McKinsey Global Institute, while a publishing entity, would fall under WP:ORG and would need to meet much higher notability requirements and (as a part of McKinsey) we would generally consolidate. The McKinsey Quarterly is a periodical and meets the notability requirements, but as the guideline says, we still need proper independent sources. Technically it should be deleted, but I have a hard time imagining that knowing that it's a big deal (some say it is more prestigious than the Harvard Business Review). So probably just keeping it to 1 paragraph might be the way to go. I can clean it up a little with a nice infobox and better sources. CorporateM (Talk) 02:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's for academic journals. We have much more difficulty with magazines or trade journals, as there seem to be no consistently applicable guidelines, and the GNG is not very helpful. we tend to judge each publication on its own merits. MCQ is not a peer-reviewed academic journal--it is a high quality relatively technical in-house journal written by its own staff based on its own research. it does not have references to other publications or sources; its reliability is that of the company. Universities do not publish journals of their own work, because no matter how high the quality of the university, it is the involvement of outsiders that gives credibility. (There have been one or two inhouse purely technical journals of this sort from major technology companies in the 20th century, and they too had prestige, but have been largely abandoned in favor of peer-reviewed conference presentations)

I have added sufficient material to the MCQ article to give a reasonable likelihood of notability , and I will look for further material over the next few weeks. How AfD would determine it if questioned is unpredictable. In practice, reputation does often count.

For the Global Institute, it will be harder to show notability , because they publish a variety of material as monographs and subseries, and it is therefore much more difficult to determine holdings and indexing. I therefore agree with your impression that it should be integrated in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Exhibitions

In light of the increase in GLAM projects internationally, I'd like to start a new WikiProject, WP:Exhibitions to help coordinate activities around major museum and gallery exhibitions. If you are interested in the project, please contact me here or on my talk page. I'm hoping to establish guidelines for creating, editing, and tagging articles on major exhibitions and to begin improving articles in this area of Wikipedia. OR drohowa (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See conversation at User talk:OR drohowa#WP:Exhibitions for my convo with JohnBod on this Project. Hoping for more responses also on the various other WikiProjects I posted on asking for comments/support.. OR drohowa (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]