Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Children's literature and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Children's literature Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-04-28 Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject. References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit

Children and young adult literature articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 4 8 12 6 30 FL 2 7 1 10 GA 9 33 80 95 217 B 25 73 180 224 9 511 C 24 175 800 1,532 24 2,555 Start 18 266 2,000 5,542 1 50 7,877 Stub 1 87 668 4,826 24 5,606 List 3 8 85 170 3 269 Category 1 1 1,291 1,293 Disambig 1 4 71 76 File 1 2,705 2,706 Portal 41 41 Project 1 45 46 Template 2 329 331 NA 1 4 75 946 843 1,869 Other 1 2 13 16 Assessed 87 657 3,908 13,352 5,339 110 23,453 Unassessed 1 4 5 Total 87 657 3,908 13,353 5,339 114 23,458 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 85,212 Ω = 5.07

Please read before posting! Before posting your comments here, please make sure you are in the right place. Discussions about articles within this project should be posted at the Article Discussion department, and discussions of the project scope and activities may be better suited for the Project Discussion department.

I am interested in helping out with this project, so I looked at the Top importance articles to try and find the stubs there, to see if I couldn't help on those articles. But in looking at the Top Importance articles it seems like the list is either too long, or too short. I frankly cannot tell how certain items made it on the Top list vs High list. I then looked at the archives and it seems that there was some discussion in September 2008 on this topic and the people who posted agreed that the importance scale needed some clarification. But that agreement never really led to any standards. So it seems like it might make sense to rediscuss this topic and come up with some clear examples for each category to help with ongoing assessments. Here is my first take at an enhanced children's lit importance table.

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Subject is a "core" topic for children's literature and is highly significant to a general audience.	Dr. Seuss Newbery Medal
High	Subject is very notable or significant within the field of children's literature and has some significance to a general audience.	Curious George Judy Blume
Mid	Subject is notable or significant within the field of children's literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it.	Walk Two Moons Quentin Blake
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of children's literature, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of a notable author or other notable subject.	Absolutely Normal Chaos Anthea Bell

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to say that as far as I am aware, I am the only person on this project actively assessing articles, and therefore I have personally assessed many of the project's articles. Assuming this is true, (I apologise if there are other users working on assessment, but I have not noticed any) then the importance ratings are very uncertain. The guidelines for article class are very specific and I have been able to use them to assess articles, but importance has always confused me. The guidelines so far have been unclear, and when the article's topic is something I am unfamiliar with I have difficulty making an accurate judgement - for instance, I have always felt that I over-use the mid importance category. I would be grateful for any more specific guidelines to help with rating in future, and especially for any users willing to check through the articles already rated and ensure they are rated correctly. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, assuming that is true, what do you think of the revised standards? I have changed it slightly from what I originally posted to make it clearer. I looked at a bunch of projects to see how they breakdown their categories. While there is a fair amount of variation, we do seem to have more Mid class articles than most projects. Once there is a project consensus about the importance scale, and some agreement about the examples, I would be happy to go back and do some work reassessing importance.Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new standards look good, although could you add examples for Top and High class? It does not look complete without them. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a couple of example for each, and modified the other two, though I am hardly wedded to any of the examples. If after some more time we (the project) decide to adopt these standards I propose we rerate each of the Top Importance articles, with discussion at the Assement Talk Page. For instance, I don't think you can make a case that the Series of Unfortunate Events is a Top Article. It seems that many projects come to consensus about their Top Importance articles and it seems like a good practice for this project, even if it would just be the two of us at the moment.Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat opposed to assigning importance ratings to specific books. This isn't a neutral assessment, but effectively original research about a book's value.

Also, having just looked at the articles for several Newbery books, collectively they are of poor quality. The Wiki editors seem to be young fans, who are unlikely to consider the "importance" -- especially as expressed on a page that they may well not read.

Back to importance assessment. I went to From the Earth to the Moon[1], and agreed that it is of high importance, but not that it is start class. Ironically, the *reason* this book is so important is not mentioned in the article. I.e., it was the direct inspiration for several of the most important real world rocket pioneers. Then, turning to Verne's Paris in the Twentieth Century, inexplicably, even though a best-seller and quoted as being "of inestimable historical value", it's rated as of mid-importance.[2]

The amount of Wikipedia editor effort to assess would be better spent making simple improvements to the articles, themselves, I'm thinking. Because many children's novels -- as distinct from the relatively "adult" treatment of the Verne books, are in dire need of first aid. I.e., it might be better at this point to improve the articles, rather than formulate how they might be improved in the indefinite future. Respectfully, Piano non troppo (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that time spent improving articles is important. However, I think if assessment is done well it can be a valuable indicator as to where time might be best spent improving articles. I like well function systems and so the idea of having everything classified correctly appeals to me, but on a practical level Top and High importance articles, correctly labeled, signal an important priority about where, else being equal, time should be spent improving. In fact the whole reason I got down this path is "I am interested in helping out with this project, so I looked at the Top importance articles to try and find the stubs there, to see if I couldn't help on those articles." You argue, "The Wiki editors seem to be young fans, who are unlikely to consider the 'importance'" to which I would respond that sophisticated editing, by a person of whatever age, is important. To produce the best children's lit articles we need sophisticated editors and I think sophisticated editors are far more likely to pay attention to things like importance ratings. While the majority of editors on these project's pages might not be sophisticated, those editors are also unlikely to produce quality articles.

And that, to me, is why the assessment is important. I want Wikipedia to be a legitimate resource. I think the Wikipedia 1.0 project helps with that, and assessment is a part of that project. I think, however, even with-out Wiki 1.0 that assessment is important for the legitimacy of Wikipedia.

I also think the assessment process can be an important way for editors to receive validation and recognition for the work they have put into articles and serve as a road map for where they should go next.

I respect your opinion about where time is best spent, but in the end cannot agree. I do hope that there would be more than just two of us doing the assessment piece, however, because of the original research/POV problems that you suggest.

As a postscript, 2 comments about From the Earth to the Moon. First, you do realize that page isn't even tagged for this project? The rating you're talking about is for the Novels' Project. Second, what quality rating do you feel the article deserves?

Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be interesting to get opinions on why people choose to edit book articles. I'll make casual edits as a part of anti-vandalism patrol. More considered edits when I'm especially fond of a book, and particularly when I have reliable references. I've made 10,000s of Wiki edits, I don't believe a single one was on account of how the article was rated. So, again ... I'm just wondering ... where do we direct editorial effort? Perhaps it's the case that there are editors who do not, for example, know a book, or have references, but who still want to contribute? And for whom the assessments are cogent? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I see the point here on the value of improving articles, it is generally impossible to choose an article at random and improve it beyond the most basic level - you need to know something about the subject matter, be that prior knowledge or research. An article which has been assessed as being important to the project is far more likely to attract experienced editors who are prepared to devote their own time to researching the subject, not just users who happen to be fans - in the same way that assessing an article's quality lets users know how it needs improving. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 15:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust, would you say then that importance assessment guides your editing? That's a good data point. (I was just thinking of doing a poll?) The issue isn't whether assessments are *ever* useful, but whether overall, the time would be better spent elsewhere.

(Parenthetically, as a professional editor, a common comment on the job is "You aren't an expert, what right do you have to criticize my writing?" The official answer is: "The company is paying me to do this, if you have an issue, take it up with them." The unofficial, non-diplomatic answer is: "It doesn't take an expert to correct poor writing, bias, or logically invalid arguments." People tend to confuse their professional competence with being beyond the criticism of "normal" people.) Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to the unofficial poll question: Truthfully, I have to say I have never edited an article based on its importance rating, although I have good reasons for doing so: firstly, I assessed most of the articles in this project (which is the main focus of my editing) for importance, so it doesn't really tell me much about the article in question; secondly, I prefer working on less important articles where there is more freedom to make big changes without an edit war; and thirdly, I tend to work on bringing very low-quality articles up to standard, and most of the higher importance articles are already of reasonably good quality.

Now that I have said that, I'd like to say I've rather lost track of this conversation. What are we here to discuss, other than general comments on the system of importance ratings? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hee, hee, hee. I didn't consider selecting low-importance articles to avoid edit wars. That seems a pretty fair reason!

The opening section phrase I was responding to was "the importance scale needed some clarification" ... my comment is that assigning importance to a work of art is an unhelpful form of original research. In the case of From the Earth to the Moon, which I gave as an example, the article editors don't even seem to clearly understand what makes the book (in my subjective opinion) high-importance.

I have created a number of children's book articles, and I'm happy to see they have not been assigned an importance. Since they were thoroughly researched, I probably have a better idea of how "important" each is than an arbitrary editor does. But, I hasten to say, this isn't a move on my part to avoid criticism. Rather, it's a response, perhaps, to a specific situation where an established editor marked a single book in a series as non-notable (but not the rest!) I hadn't originally felt it necessary to justify the article to someone unfamiliar with the series; it wound up taking me longer to defend the article than it did to write it.

So, getting back to the section topic, my comment is the existing system, whatever its benefits and deficiencies, does not need revamping. Deletion, perhaps, but not revamping. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, in that case I'd say that revamping is precisely what the system needs to solve this kind of problem, since deletion seems unlikely. Revamping the system to make the importance criteria clearer and easier to understand will reduce the number of misunderstandings and badly-considered ratings and mean a fairer rating system for all of the articles in the project - including the ones you are working on which, if they have the Children's Literature project box, are going to receive importance ratings sooner or later. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 12:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are supporting just original research, but demonstrating hubris. Neither you, nor any Wikipedia editor has a right to quantify the importance of an artistic work. Apparently you imagine on account of some bureaucratic necessity, that you do. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A project-based importance rating is hardly a sweeping judgement. It is designed to be a rough guide to the article's relevance within this particular project so that editors can find key topics more easily. Just because an article is assigned Low importance within this project - or any other - does not mean it is generally unimportant. It simply means that, to this particular subject area, it would not be considered as important as something in a higher category. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see harm coming from the assessment or does it just bother you as not being NPOV and being OR? I can understand why you find the ratings offensive, but to me the response there is to ignore them yourself. At this time in the WP community there isn't a consensus around not having importance ratings. As such it makes sense for us to have them and for the ratings to be effective. I have been staying mostly quiet at this point because I really do see your POV, but I would suggest you consider fighting this battle on a larger stage than this project. 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Shall we update this, then? Also, is there any way to provide a better guideline between 'Mid' and 'Low' class, because while 'Top' and 'High' are generally fairly obvious, the lower classes are often hard to differentiate between if you are not familiar with the subject matter. For example, a supporting character within a series of books is generally Low importance, an award-winning series is generally mid importance... strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no more discussion in the past 6 days I'm going to go ahead and update the criteria. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been experimenting in my sandbox with using User:JL-Bot/Project content to create a Wall of Recognised Content to go in place of the user-updated Accomplishments section. Since this would be automatically updated every few days, it could conceivably display far more information about the project, including nominees for GA and FA, and former GA and FA articles. What does everyone else think? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love it. My only thought is about the space it will take up. Thanks for this, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's wonderful. Joyous! | Talk 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions about what should/should not be included? A full list of what's available is on the template page - basically, current, former and nominated FA, FL and GA, current and past Featured Pictures and Portals, current A class and previous Did You Knows. It seems obvious to include current FA, GA and DYK like we have currently, but what about the others? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This project hasn't really adapted A-Class level articles at this point so I don't think that makes sense for us right now. I would suggested we'd want current and nominated FA, FL, and GA, and DYK historical. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the project's scope includes fictional characters. It seems as though very few pages of fictional characters have been tagged. Before I go around and try and find pages to be tagged, I wanted to make sure people agreed that these pages should be tagged.

On a related note I think there are categories out there that would make sense to have a bot tag for us. For instance, there is a Percy Jackson and the Olympians category. It seems as though those pages, especially if we're covering characters, should be tagged. If people are alright with it I will attempt to make a list of categories to request bot tagging. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea to me. The subject of Children's Literature clearly encompasses characters in children's literature, so I agree they should be tagged - and if we can find a way for a bot to handle some of this, it will be much quicker. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started doing some project banner tagging by hand as there seem to be literally dozens of categories that this projct covers and for which there are some pages with no tags. Some categories are better than others. I am not sure if submitting such a large list to a bot is appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through some of the categories myself, I see what you mean - many of them fit into this project. But without a bot's help, won't it just take even longer? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 09:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I forgot - a while back I tagged as many category pages as I could find for the project. You can find a fairly comprehensive list at Category:Category-Class children and young adult literature articles, although it is a few months out of date. Also, if you find any I missed could you tag them? strdst_grl (call me Stardust)

Hi, I'm currently working on an article for the novel Dot.Robot. I've started to work on it here. If anyone could give me assistance, I would be much obliged. Many thanks. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 13:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at categories for bot tagging as suggested by Barkeep49, but I'm uncertain about some of the categories. Does this project cover television (or any non-book) adaptations of works of children's literature, or is it limited to the books themselves? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is articles strictly on adaptations fall outside of this project. So the Harry Potter books and characters yes, articles about specific films no. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've got a couple of articles that need assesing

Many thanks Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Given the heated nature of the debate and that it seems that there may a be a group of editors which is prepared to delete unreferenced BLP articles unilaterally, may I suggest that we make it a priority for this group to clean up the relatively small number of unreferenced BLP articles associated with this project? I'll do the ones I know about.--Plad2 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started attacking the unreferenced BLPs attached to this project. Steve Cole, Jane Hissey and Gene Kemp done so far.--Plad2 (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is now closed (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people) but the debate rumbles on. There is now a proposal for a new BLP specific PROD and new procedures for dealing with new page unreferenced BLPs as they are created.--Plad2 (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phase II of this RfC is in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase IIin case anyone is interested in following the debate. I have resisted the temptation to join in, preferring to get on with the business of dealing with the BLPs in this project.--Plad2 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources and references to the John Masefield page and have proposed (on the Talk page) deleting the very old (2006) "Cite check" tag. The article still needs a bit of work but the bulk of it seems generally to be a thorough piece of work (not sure about the "pub sign" paragraph someone has added). I'm still relatively new at the protocol of removing tags, so thought best to mention it here.--Plad2 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance of setting up a CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force? I'll try to drum up some support. If you reply please leave me a talkback template. Many thanks. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 13:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea, but I don't think there are any official task forces for this project yet - they all seem to get set up at WikiProject Novels. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see; but other than that are there any major (or minor, come to think of it) problems that would stop the creation of a task force? Cheers. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any reasons why there shouldn't be one if you can get enough interest to be worthwhile. But getting enough interest could be hard... (Just so you know, I would be happy to help out.) strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 15:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But do you think it should be here or at WikiProject Novels? Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 17:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be here, but it may be easier to attract attention at WikiProjet Novels. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a redirect at WP:NOVELS but actually put it here. Does that sound ok? Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 17:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me but you might want to wait for more users to comment, and also check that WP:NOVELS is okay with a redirect. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left them a note. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please feel free to add your name here. Many thanks. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the Unreferenced BLP's in the cleanup list, added references to some and deleted the "unreferenced" tag from these and those few which still had the tag even though a previous editor had added references. That still leaves several without references.

However, the thing that struck me was that all of these articles should be classified as stubs (not all are), they all need a lot of work, and some are questionable as being worth keeping at all. Being a bit of a newbie, I'm reluctant to start scattering tags and proposing AfDs all over the place but could I suggest that others in this project look at Karen Beaumont and Jennifer Armstrong and help make a decision about whether they should be kept and expanded or proposed for deletion?--Plad2 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to PRODing Jennifer Armstrong and will attempt to provide a reference. I think she may be legit to go through regular AfD, however. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research it seems as though the Jennifer Armstrong who is currently listed there is different from the children's author. I am going to go the BLP noticeboard to seek guidance.

As previously noted, I've been concentrating on cleaning up unreferenced BLPs in the Children's Literature Project. Mostly this has involved finding a few references and removing the "unsourced" template. In some cases this has been replaced with a "cleanup:multiple issues" template as that is the main problem with the article. In the process, I'm sorting them out into:

• Articles worth improving (IMO)
• Articles where the subject is probably sufficiently Notable but the article needs a lot of work or a complete rewrite
• Articles where I doubt that the subject is sufficiently Notable for it to be worth trying to save the article. I may suggest these as proposed for deletion after discussion here.

In most cases (I got a bit more systematic as I went along), I've posted a message on the article's Talk page and, if the original creator (or recent editor)is still active, posted a message on their Talk page. The full list of articles I've looked at and how I've currently sorted them is on my User page. If anyone is interested expressing a view on the work, or, indeed in helping, please post a message on my Talk page.--Plad2 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A result of my work earlier today to on the unreferenced BLPs in this project has stimulated a response from an editor called Kevin, who has Clive King on a list of almost 500 BLPs he's proposing to delete en masse. He's stuck another banner on the page and comments that the refs aren't good enough (actually the whole article isn't really good enough - see my general point above).
So, my question is a) can he just delete this page just because (in his opinion) the references aren't good enough? and b) would any of you feel like either helping improve the article or adding a comment to User:Kevin's talk page to make it clear that the page should not be deleted? You might also like to have a quick skim down his list of proposed executions to check that whether anyone else you care about is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plad2 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a consequence of the work I'm doing down in the gutters of this project with the unreferenced BLPs, I'm coming across pages like The 22 Letters by Clive King which seem to have been started by someone a while back who thought that all their favourite books should have a page of their own in Wikipedia, wrote a couple of lines and left. IMO both Clive King and his best-known book Stig of the Dump are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (although possibly merged into a single article as both current pages need work - one to discuss at another time) but The 22 Letters (lovely book but long out of print) is probably not.

I'm more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, but life's too short to spend time on books few people know these days when there are more important books to work on. I'm sure there's a Wikipedia procedure for this (and I'm just going to dig a bit deeper into this) but it would seem to me to be sensible to start with a discussion here, first about the principles, then about the specific pages before proposing a formal delition. Or is there a better way?--Plad2 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this is a problem with notability. Having looked through the notability criteria quite recently, and looking at some of the suggestions on this project page, I am sure there are quite a few articles which may well be better off deleted. Perhaps Google the subject, and see if it is notable in some way which the article fails to mention (e.g. an award winner, a frequently taught book) but if you really feel it doesn't deserve an article - and especially if you post it here and get agreement - then it should go. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! that was quick! Thank you! I've just been looking through the Deletion policy and guidelines and it seems to me that PROD is the way to go on this. I might be bold and PROD the two bios I mentioned above and The 22 Letters and see what happens.--Plad2 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here goes. Before I start a formal PROD ( proposed deletion) for The 22 Letters page on the grounds that it does not meet Wikipedia's Notability criteria, it seems sensible to open a discussion here and on the page's Talk Page. It's a lovely book but it's no longer in print in the UK. The page is very scanty and I, for one, don't propose to spend time trying to bring it up to scratch. Any objections or opinions on either this particular page or the principle, please let me know.--Plad2 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going gently through the PROD guidelines, it seems to me that the page has: not been previously proposed for deletion; not been undeleted; not been and is not being discussed at AfD (though how you work that one out, given the HUGE, number of lists they have over there, I don't know)--Plad2 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reason to suggest notability and would support such a PROD. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 21:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK PROD template added. If you want to second the deletion, you will need to add a Prod-2 template.--Plad2 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the PROD has now taken effect and the page has been deleted.--Plad2 (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Google, I found enough evidence of notability that I disputed the prod, restored the article, and added a couple of refs. It may not be enough to keep should it be AfDed, but the sources in Google Books should be findable at college libraries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of cleaning up this page from where it was languishing in the unreferenced BLPs listing. It's in better shape now but really needs a re-write of the main section. It's a really interesting story and a worth while subject. I don't think it will take long to do as I've added a number of external links to the page which carry the relevant background bio info. I've run out of steam on this tonight and would be more than happy if someone else in this project felt like making a stab at it.--Plad2 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More content added, plus a load of references (which probably need standardising but I've run out of energy to deal with this tonight)--Plad2 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through some of the article categories, there seem to be a lot of stubs in this project which really ought to be better articles. I know lots of people do good work improving articles individually, but could we organise some kind of collaboration on this? For example,a task force, or a 'Stub of the Week' for everyone to help out with? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. I'm currently concentrating on improving unreferenced BLPs. I've asked for help on Robin McKinley, Newbery-winning author. Article better than most of the ones I've been looking at (several of which may be beyond rescuing) but hers defintely needs work. Also see request for help on Peter Sis, above.--Plad2 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ask Walterbot to run a new cleanup listing?--Plad2 (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup listing sounds great, but I can't find any sign of a Walterbot... did you get the name right? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 18:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think he used to be called WolterBot (I spelled his name incorrectly, which wouldn't have helped!). I've just found him here User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings and it seems that one can request a cleanup listing or subscribe to an automatic cleanup. I believe he generated our current cleanup list.--Plad2 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stardust, shall I request a new clean up listing, or have you done so?--Plad2 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer it if you could - I seem to have enough stuff to keep track of at the moment. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Or, at least, I've added the template to our main page as per instructions (in the "cleanup" section) and we wait to see what happens next. Instructions say it can take a few days for the bot to generate a new list.--Plad2 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added references to Canadian author Deborah Ellis. Subject meets notability criteria and belongs with this project but article needs a lot of work. I have added a cleanup template to the page. --Plad2 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the work with unreferenced BLPs in this project, I have posted a PROD template on the Mike Smit page. Published author but both books appear to be out of print and a Google search turned up nothing. If anyone would like to discuss this, please post a message on my Talk page.--Plad2 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Smit page has now been deleted.--Plad2 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just placed a "multiple issues" on the Peter Corey page. Looks like a spam job, possibly a cut and paste from the subject's own website. As far as I can see, the series of books referenced are all out of print and I can find little in the way of third party references to support this page's inclusion. Courses of action could be to remove from the Children's Literature Project and let others deal with it, or discuss whether suitable for PROD. Either way, I don't feel inclined to spend time tidying this one up. Any thoughts, anyone?--Plad2 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and the related page Coping With has the same issues. I'm inclined to suggest a merge of the two pages, pare it down to the bare facts and leave the "multiple issues" template on it. If it's not been touched in a few months time, we might consider whether to PROD it.--Plad2 (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page has had a Notability and "unreferenced" template since June 2008. The links on the page are poor. The books referred to all seem to be out of print and I am unable to find any reliable third-party sources on-line to support the subject's notability. Possible candidate for PROD unless anyone objects?--Plad2 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having completed a second pass through the "unreferenced BLPs" in the cleanup listing, I have found a few articles which I think probably are not worth trying to save. I would appreciate a second (or third) opinion before proceeding.

• Peter Corey Doubtful notability
• Anita Ganeri Doubtful notability
• The Two Steves Doubtful notability
• Bjarne Reuter I haven't tagged this one but it should probably be tagged as it is largely a list of books with only one reference (added by someone before I got there)
• Mike Phillips (illustrator) British illustrator. Probable PROD as I have been unable to find reliable third party references, apart from a gallery of images here [3], which is not useful.

PROD template added to Mike Phillips.--Plad2 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tristan Boyer Binns Non-fiction author and photographer. Doubtful notability.
• Christianna Brand ( tagged Oct 2009) Doubtful notability
• Jennifer Armstrong (tagged Sep 2009) Doubtful Notability already mentioned Now seems to have an article of sorts. Needs work.--Plad2 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Karen Beaumont (tagged Sep 2009) Doubtful notability already mentioned

PROD template added to Karen Beaumont.--Plad2 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gail Hennessey (tagged Jun 2008)Doubtful notability already mentioned

There are also two translators (who may not meet WP:GNG criteria):

• Harry Rowohlt (tagged Oct 2009)
• Inger Edelfeldt (tagged Oct 2009)

And I'm not sure what to do about Thomas Brezina (tagged Apr 2008).--Plad2 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Armstrong should no longer be tagged for our project as the person listed isn't a children's author, and should be deleted. I have begun work on creating a page for Jennifer Armstrong who is a children's author and is notable in my sandbox, but have no idea when I'll be posting it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take it that everyone is happy if I go ahead and PROD the above list?--Plad2 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently come up with a number of ideas for this project, so I thought I would share them here and see what you think:

1. Bot tagging based on category. I have a list of categories that I believe are suitable for bot tagging in this project in my sandbox, which I plan to sumbit to a tagging bot next week. Please add any categories you think are missing to this list (note: there are lists of categories suitable for tagging by hand as well, please use the correct list).
2. Needs infobox tagging. I have requested a modification to the template which will categorise all articles tagged as needing infoboxes under Category:Children's and young adult literature articles needing infoboxes. I plan to request a bot to automatically tag any B class or lower article which lacks an infobox as needing one. Please tag any relevant articles, or check out the category to add infoboxes.
3. A newsletter or bulletin. Many projects run a newsletter, which helps to co-ordinate the members and keep them up to date. Should we run one?
4. A subpage for article discussions. Plad2 in particular has come up with several articles which need discussing, and I feel there should be a dedicated page for these discussions to take place.

What do you think? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

1. I am glad you have taken the lead with the bot tagging and hope to see that move forward.
2. Seems like a no brainer.
3. I support this idea as well though do worry about making sure it is something manageable so that there can be some consistency to it.
4. I had thought about this myself and wonder. At the moment there is only a small group of us that are posting here. I'm not sure if giving a subpage would encourage or discourage others involvement.

Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

1. I don't feel qualified to comment on the bot discussion. My only question is whether we should have a category for 20th Century Children's Literature, since we are now in the 21st Century. And whether we could have a Multicultural Children's Literature category.
2. Info box tagging, seems fine to me. If it could have a link or template to show beginners how to add a info box, that would be helpful.
3. I think the problem is that this project has a very small group of active editors, many of whom have quite specific areas of interest and an even smaller number of whom are regularly editing. If we take time to run a newsletter, that's time away from editing pages.
4. Perhaps we could organise the Main page to have sections for "Project of the Month"; "Possible Deletion" discussions (which could include name of page and a one line description of the subject and problems), which then could direct to a more free-form discussion/Talk sub-page; and any other topics which come up regularly, leaving this page for more free-form discussions or topics which come up from time to time.--Plad2 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Update:

1. Barring any future contributions, I plan to organise this and make a bot request by early next week.
2. Infobox tagging has been requested and the request was accepted by Xenobot Mk V. It should take place soon.
3. Okay, the newsletter issue as far as I am concerned is this: we don't have many users, and most of those we do have don't seem to visit the project page much (just judging from the fact that only four users have posted non-automated messages in the last month). On the one hand, a newsletter distracts from editing - but on the other hand, it might help encourage the editors we do have to contribute more to the project, and keep them focussed on the current ideas...
4. The point of a sub-page would just be to move some of the more routine article discussions about notability, deletion concerns, work needed etc. to somewhere where they are the main focus of attention - pretty much what Plad2 said. THis might put them a bit out of the way for casual browsers, but I think it might help interested users focus on the discussion more.

strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

1. Thanks!
2. Yay!
3. I agree that a newsletter would not be good for this project.
4. I like the "Project of the Month" idea. Has anyone considered putting together a collaboration project? I think it would encourage users to become more active. I am currently trying to get a collaboration project up and running on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, and would be willing to use what I've learned from other WikiProjects I'm involved in to get one started for this group. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Okay, I think it's fair to say at this point that the bot tagging topics are going to happen, but the newsletter isn't very popular. Some of the suggestions about the sub-page ideas need discussing though: I think a collaboration project of some kind is a great idea (it seems to me that it esentially encourages participation in the same way as a newsletter but is more focussed on improving articles). Does anyone have any ideas for how to organise it, or what articles could be used? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

needs-infobox tagging  Task complete. 1,853 edits. Note some concerns were raised here: User talk:Xeno#needs-infobox article tagging (perm) - regarding an infobox being not a necessity, but an editorial choice. FYI. –xeno^talk 21:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have just been made aware of this discussion due to the infobox tagging. I would like to suggest that in the future such changes not be made without at least something resembling a decent amount of time allotted for discussion - one day is hardly sufficient. I noticed all of the project tags suddenly being labeled "needs infobox=yes" on all the articles I work on and I was appalled. I have specifically chosen not use infoboxes on some articles. Contrary to popular belief, they are not required and should be used with care, as they tend to introduce incorrect information in literature articles and often scare away new editors. Could we at least have a discussion about this for a week or so? Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If, in a week, it's determined that these tags should not be there, let me know and I will mass-revert. Also keep in mind that this was a one-off task so if an editor decides that the article does not need an infobox, simply flip the yes to no, and carry on. –xeno^talk 22:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy to add info boxes to the pages I'm watching (don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other about the need for them) but think it would be helpful if those adding a "need info box" tag would also add a quick fix template guide to adding the thing. Could the tag include this information, please? Could someone add a) a rationale and b) a simple guideline? BTW, I do agree that it's not terribly helpful to have loads of extra tags added to the many problematic pages in this project, when what actually needs to happen is some thorough research and editing. Rather than spend time adding templates to articles, I think it would be more helpful to focus on actually doing the work to fix the articles in question.--Plad2 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I seem to have made a wrong call on this issue. I wasn't aware that it would annoy so many people, or I would have had a longer discussion. I just thought that since the majority of suggestions made here only receive one or two replies, I probably would not get more feedback. What I will say is this:

1. I have no idea how to change the template message about infoboxes to be more helpful, the current one was auto-generated. Perhaps we could produce a quick guide somewhere on the project page?
2. Since this was a one off bot tagging which will not be repeated, if there are particular articles you feel do not need infoboxes then simply remove the needs infobox parameter. They will not be retagged.
3. The main reason I suggested this in the first place was because I believe many articles in this project would benefit a great deal from the addition of an infobox. If you feel differently, then please disagree and we can decide whether to completely untag. However, I feel certain that the majority of freshly tagged articles would be improved by an infobox.

strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not at all annoyed by this ( I apologise if it sounded as though I was). I've switched some of the articles I'm watching to "no" because I think the lack of an info box is not a priority (there are bigger issues with many of these pages) and left some as "yes" as it seems a reasonable suggestion. Being a bit new at this sort of thing, I would appreciate some help on how to create an info box. If it can't be added to the template, then perhaps someone who is a wiz at these things could help with a tutorial?--Plad2 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm no wiz but I think I know the basics. Generally, you can add an infobox by copying and pasting the text on its template page (generally under Usage in the Documentation). This will include a list of attributes for you to specify about the particular subject you are writing about (so for a Harry Potter book, you would enter J K Rowling after |author=). Some useful infoboxes for this project might be Template:Infobox character or Template:Infobox book. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be simple to add a link from the "needs-infobox=yes" message to a project-page that describes the various infoboxes used in this project (Author, novel, book, publisher, etc.). After the page is drafted, just let me know and I'll do the needful. –xeno^talk 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like Xeno's suggestion and would be happy to help put a project page together with examples (as this will help teach me how to do it). I've found the following templates which we could base them on. Haven't found a specific "author" template yet. Also if any of you would like to nominate good examples of the various forms of info box for the page, that would be helpful:Template:Infobox book;Template:Infobox book series;Template:Infobox artist--Plad2 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox writer}}, {{Infobox publisher}} –xeno^talk 14:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ask: why are we adding these infoboxes? We should have a good reason to add something like this across so many articles. Strdst_grl says that they would be "improved", but she gives no reason as to why. Infoboxes in literature articles tend to detract from articles, in my opinion. for several reasons. If the boxes are reduced to the fields that objective, they simply repeat information that is already in the lead of any decent article, making them redundant. The boxes will also add a lot of intimidating code to the article, which demonstrably scares away newbies from editing, while at the same time adding no real content to the article. If the boxes include fields like "Influence" or "Genre", subjective fields, the boxes start to misrepresent the sources and mislead readers. For example, if a book is listed "fantasy", "alternate fiction", and "romance", but never all three together, listing all three in the infobox is misleading to the reader. Also, listing "novel" about a book from the 18th century, is highly debatable. These are some of the reasons why I feel infoboxes are unhelpful and potentially misleading. If we are going to include infoboxes, I think a good argument should be made for them. It needs to be something specific, beyond "improvement". Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, infoboxes can help to seriously improve articles. They provide a quick-glance summary of the article for casual readers, and can be very useful when browsing through topics. However, their main benefit seems to be something your argument overlooks: while they contain information which should be present in "any decent article" - and for that reason I specified the tagging be limited to B class and below, although perhaps with hindsight B and C class would be better excluded - the majority of articles on this project and almost certainly of the articles tagged are stubs, many of which lack even the most basic information. An infobox can be the gateway to expanding the article, giving a guide to the information required by the type of article and helping to focus editors, and adding a reasonably complete infobox would automatically expand many of the articles tagged to a far more reasonable standard. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that info boxes are entirely optional (there doesn't appear to be any requirement for them in the Wikipedia style guides) and it can't, therefore, be asserted that all articles "need" an infobox, may I suggest that we reverse the bot? We can, at the same time, add a section on the main page about infoboxes (suggest that Stubs and Starts might like to add them) and provide a link to some good examples. so that those editors who want to add them can do so easily. Of the FAs in this project, 6 have info boxes, 11 don't.--Plad2 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I admit it might be best to undo the bot tagging, at least for now, but the category should remain in place and editors should be encouraged to tag articles they feel need an infobox. Also, I will go through existing articles in the category (i.e. hand-tagged) and check they have been tagged correctly. Does anyone think differently? strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are a nice-to-have, and are not essential. They are ideally treated as a summary: anything mentioned in the infobox should also be mentioned in prose, with the possible exception of the image (no real need to duplicate images in an article). A short article where the infobox is longer than the actual text can look a bit silly; see The Tale of Pigling Bland for example, which has acres of white space at 1280x1024, and only loses this at resolutions of 800x600 or lower. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - The bot tagging has been reverted. I will begin to check the remaining tags soon. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having one of those OMG moments that one occasionaly gets in Wikipedia. This article appears to be rated as a Start Class and carries several tags. IMO, she's one of the greats and a page on Ursula K. Le Guin should at least be at GA status by now.

My suggestion for prioritising work is that we each nominate our top three articles (based on importance to the project) which need work and collaborate on getting them fixed. Doesn't stop us working on our own areas of personal focus as well, but if we can harness our collective efforts on a small group of really important pages and work together, I think we will achieve more and get a real sense of progress. Comments anyone?--Plad2 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could take advantage of the new project stats box. It lists all the Top-importance stubs etc. on separate pages. There are 28 top importance articles currently below B class and 172 high importance ones. That's clearly too much to do all at once, but those lists could be a good starting point. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an excellent idea! That's a pre-determined list and I see no reason to start creating a different (rather subjective) list. I'd be happy to concentrate on the biographies. Stardust, could you have a look at the Roald Dahl article and see whether it is correctly categorised? It also turns up on the cleanup listing in a few places and I propose to work through these and get them sorted out.--Plad2 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm going mad, this article, Ana Malit, seems to be about a town and doesn't belong with this project. I have left a message on User:KittyRainbow's talk page, since she added the template in the first place. Second opinion anyone?--Plad2 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the revision history, this page was about Doreen Cronin, a children's author, at the time it was tagged. Then User:Three01 moved it to Ana Malit and wrote about the town, for reasons unclear, and a new Doreen Cronin article has since been created. It is, as Nedlum pointed out when creating the new article, most bizarre. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, shall we just delete the Children's literature template from the page so that it stops turning up in our lists?--Plad2 (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar indeed. I've history split and merged the early revisions to Doreen Cronin and re-added the tag to her talk page. –xeno^talk 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To increase readibility and help implement several recent suggestions for the project, I will be working on a new design for the project page in my sandbox over the next week or so, located at User:Strdst grl/sandbox/project. The redesign will focus on layout and style changes, and changes to actual content will be minimised. This is not yet complete enough for direct comments or suggestions, but I will post updates and requests for comments as it progresses. This notice is to allow anyone who objects to a redesign to put forward early objections. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the debate about info boxes above, perhaps a sub-section in the "Style Guide and Resources" section on info boxes with links to the most useful templates might be an idea? Having now experimented a bit, I'm rather inclined to think that it is not necessary to create children's and YA specific templates. I think I'd also like to suggest a subsection with the key points about BLPs and links to good examples--Plad2 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed changes are now ready for comment. The changes are summarised at User talk:Strdst grl/sandbox/project and can be viewed on a number of my sandbox pages. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I would prefer it if all comments were left on the user talk page above, so that I know where to find them, but I will check here as well.

In response to Plad2's comment, I have included some information on Infoboxes, but none on BLPs because I am not sure I fully understand the recent changes (anyone who does is welcome to add some information). I would also like to know if anyone objects to a message sent to all Active users notifying them of the proposed changes, because they are fairly major and not all members check this page regularly. If no-one objects to this, I will send it out tomorrow morning. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all looks very good. May I suggest that the "Articles for Discussion" sub-page would be the appropriate place for a sub-section on BLPs? While many of the issues are similar to issues on all articles, there are some which are peculiar to BLPs and the source of the heated debates about the deletion process. There are a number of proposals being discussed and, my reading of this is that they may have a separate PROD process. May I also suggest that we provide links to some of the commonly used editing templates (such as "clean-up" and "references"). As a newbie, I recall finding my way round the various pages about references tortuous and I think it might be helpful to offer some links to the less daunting pages. In conclusion, I support these proposed changes--Plad2 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Discussion would be a good place to put information on BLP issues, and I do agree with the idea of expanding the template section, as this seems to confuse a lot of users. Can I suggest you either make those changes to the sandbox proposal for discussion, or wait for when/if it goes live and make them then? I don't think I know enough about the topics to do it myself, although I'd be happy to help if you give me some pointers. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the draft Project Talk page.--Plad2 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 days of discussion, 7 project members have supported the proposed changes and none have opposed them. I am therefore going to carry out the changes. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered this bot User:AlexNewArtBot which generates an automatic daily listing of newly created articles which may fall into a specific category or area. I've just been through the existing "Wikipedia:WikiProject Children" list and found a number of new articles on children's books or authors. I've tagged some of them, added references and "multiple issues" templates to a couple and left a message for the editor User talk:Mhjohns who has just created a number of single line articles for a raft of Newbery Honor Books. The "Wikipedia:WikiProject Children" (which seems to be a dead project) parameters capture too wide a range (child sportsmen/women, general articles about children) but I think the concept is a good one, if we can get an alert run on more narrow parameters to do with this project. Our current Article Alert subscription covers a number of useful things but not the creation of new pages which might fall into our remit. If you think we would find this useful, I'm willing to explore it further.--Plad2 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a good idea to help with tagging new articles, which is one of the project's weaker areas as far as I can tell. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 21:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems like it could be of benefit to the project. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Charles Dickens article is still assessed as a C-class and I wondered why. It seems to me to to warrant a higher rating than that. It has quite a number of active editors, so perhaps it's not ready for reassessment yet? In any case, I don't think there is any point in my trying to join in the editorial discussion on this page when people who know the subject and the books a whole lot better than I do seem to be getting the job done.--Plad2 (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article. One of the problems with the article is revealed in the footnotes - it cites a whole host of random sources, not high-quality Dickens scholarship. In my opinion, worrying about the assessment of an article other than stub or GA does no good. All of the fine gradations in between are rather meaningless. It is only important once an article meets a basic standard of quality. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why this one is tagged as belonging to the Children's Literature Project?--Plad2 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to hazard a guess, it's his inclusion in Category:Children's non-fiction writers. –xeno^talk 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. But why has he been included in the category? I can see nothing on the page to indicate that he belongs with this project.--Plad2 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category was added back in 2007 by Cgingold (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 00:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let's see whether Cgingold (talk · contribs) responds to the post you've placed on his/her Talk page.--Plad2 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger roger. –xeno^talk 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] Sorry for the delay in replying. The answer is very simple: virtually all of Archer's books were non-fiction US history written & published for Young Adults, which falls under the heading of "Children's non-fiction". Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my hunt for unreferenced BLPs belonging to this project, I started looking at the lists at "Category:Children's book illustrators" and "Category:Children's writers". It seems that the majority of the writers are already tagged for this project but several significant children's books illustrators are not. So I started tagging them. And then stopped as I realised that I ran the risk of assuming that everyone would agree that they should all be tagged. So I offer the question for discussion.--Plad2 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We touched on our project's scope not too long ago and I think the consensus answer to this question was yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should be tagged. I requested a bot tagging for several categories (including this one) by KingpinBot but it seems to be taking a while to get started. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. For the time being (until the bot gets going) I'll go on doing it manually when I have the time.--Plad2 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would welcome a collective view on whether the article on Watson Charlton is worth keeping. I'm inclined to PROD on notability grounds but I'm aware that not everyone has the same views on what counts as notable. My interest and expertise is more with living authors and artists than those with historical importance. I've not tagged the article for this project yet. --Plad2 (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a very cursory look and couldn't find notability but that doesn't mean he isn't. The person who has edited that page still looks to be active so I think I'd stick a notability tag on it and see if it can be established. I think PROD is unlikely to work for any article which has a major contributor who is still active on the site, so if you don't want to go notability I would try AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of George and Doris Hauman, User:Pmbgggw was alerted in Feb 2009 by User:PamD to the probable lack of notability of this subject but nothing has happened since to improve the situation. These artists seem to be notable only for their illustrations for The Little Engine That Could and it seems to me that this page has nothing to add. I have added the Project template but I'm inclined to PROD the article unless anyone thinks otherwise.--Plad2 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to this, but with the redesign should these types of discussions happen on the Project's Article Discussion page?? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Next time I'll post there.--Plad2 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much what the new page is for. Should I leave some kind of message here about the new discussion sub-pages? I'm not sure where I would put it. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we archive the current talk page. With the redesign there are several discussions which would now be better suited to one of the project discussion forums. We have also had several long discussions, combined with the BLP notice, which is making this page quite cumbersome I feel at the moment. If someone would prefer a specific discussion not be archived, it is easy to ensure it remains on this page. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally in favor of letting the bots autoarchive after a certain point -- that tends to avoid arguments on the merits of archived threads. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are meant to be bot archived if no-one responds for 60 days, but there has been a lot of discussion recently. Perhaps some of the article/project discussions should be moved onto the new pages and the others should stay here until the bot returns. Or we could change the archiving age. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. The first comment is over 60 days, but the second one isn't, and the default is to archive at least two at a time. 95K doesn't strike me as overly unwieldy, so I don't see any reason to change the settings quite yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could change the time settings, though. Shrinking from 60 days to 31 would get rid of the first ten or so conversations. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not in here much anyway. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the generator of a lot of the recent discussions about specific pages, I'd support moving them to the new discussion page.--Plad2 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped it down to 45 days -- let's see how that works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better. About the article discussions, I think it might be best not to move the existing conversations, and just start using the new page for new discussions. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 11:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]