Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Book Club

Nominations

The next project article is to be selected on March 1, 2006

Please add new nominations below; the initial list was created from suggestions made by User:Mgreenbe on 10 December 2005.

Also, please do us all a favour: When you vote, update the vote count in the subhead at the same time. If you're feeling generous, check to see if you've put it over the "stays until" margin and update that line too, if needed.

Middlemarch (George Eliot) (3 votes, stays until March 8, 2006)

Nominated 10 December 2005; needs at least 6 votes by March 8, 2006

Support

User:Mgreenbe 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stevecov 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lesdumort, wishes to support this book even though it is past January 1st
User:the chavi i've always wanted read some Eliot, and she got skipped in my BritLit class in high school. The chavi
As in, I`m for nominating --Isolani 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A true classic, worthy of WBC attention - Stevecov 15:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read a review on it and it sounded very interesting-Lesdumort

I`m all for it --Isolani 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Our Time (Ernest Hemingway) (1 vote, stays until March 1, 2006)

Nominated 20 February 2006; needs at least 3 votes by March 1, 2006

Support

User:Cromwellt (nominator)
Mgreenbe 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (if able to get a copy)[reply]

Comments

Shortcut

I created a shortcut at WP:WBC whilst updating Wikipedia:Watch/collaborations because I'm lazy. Hope that's okay. Hiding 4 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Tried before

A similar thing already existed at Wikipedia:Book Club but the idea died out fairly quickly. Angela . 02:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry, but since I'm in college, I doubt I'll have much time for this. I've reluctantly dropped out. Best of luck for the continuation of this, and if I have any available time I'll try to contribute what I can. Volatile 19:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead?

Is this project still active? I just found it and would be interested in participating, but it looks like no new books are being selected activley, and the date for the next book to come up ios still listed as september 1st. --Mr. Dude ^{†@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ} 19:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem you do. Worst case, let's start it again! This is a great idea, and I've already been doing this with my reading list. Here's what I already own that I haven't already read:

Confessions of an English Opium-Eater
L'Histoire de Juliette by the Marquis de Sade (abridged, but unexpurgated — for the adult reader)
Vanity Fair
Various Henry James, particularly In the Cage
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Idiot
Middlemarch
Absalom, Absalom
The Grapes of Wrath
Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War

Any of the longer Victorian novels would be suitable, I think. Naturally, I can also just pick up whatever other book. Everything on the page looks good, too. Thoughts? --Mgreenbe 02:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will also help out if I can. Vanity Fair would probably be my book of choice from that list, but I don't know how much use I'll be in this, so I'll leave the decision up to someone else. I also think it might be nice to change the criteria to be open-ended; the current process doesn't really give enough time to craft a decent (preferably featured) article and read the book. Ambi 02:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair looks a little thick, but I could definitely do two weeks and two weeks. Since (right now) it seems like it's just us, we can be as open-ended as we like. Should I change the official start to, say, January 1st? --Mgreenbe 11:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about having a start date as such; I think a bit of informality works well with these things (I think it's why the Canberra collaboration has been so successful so far). If Vanity Fair is okay with you, I'll try and get my hands on a copy in the next few days. Ambi 12:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll edit the book club's page to show the current status. --Mgreenbe 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a little while until I get the book, but I'll be glad to help out. --Mr. Dude ^{†@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ} 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll join, but my participation might be a little sporadic. Magicmonster 23:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I'll try to get my hands on the book in a day or two; I'm finally back at my parents place after a couple of weeks of moving dramas. Ambi 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#No_more_inactive?. It might be easier for each of us to mention / write about books we are currently reading anyway. Basically, the Book Club is a great idea, but I wonder if I could fit in yet another book at short notice. All the best, <K F> 03:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now 'informal' is an overstatement for the WBC. What book do you have in mind? --Mgreenbe 19:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any particular book in mind. I just thought we could compile a list of novels -- let's restrict it to novels for the time being -- users are reading at the moment. If it's a recent publication, but even if it isn't, two or three people or even more might find they are currently reading the same book (or that they have already read it) and could collaborate on the Wikipedia article. Others might even get interested and start reading the novel as well.

This is just an idea. But I think it might work better than everyone having to read Vanity Fair, which I have been wanting to read for 30 years or so. Right now I'm reading Mrs. Kimble by Jennifer Haigh, but I only just got started, and I'm going to take a while until I've finished it.

So all I'm suggesting at this point is making a list of novels we have recently read or are currently reading. <K F> 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not mutually exclusive. This can exist to work up an article to featured status (or at least near it); WPN can exist to encourage increased breadth. Ambi 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Project - Vanity Fair

(thought this would be a good place to disscuss progress)

Started read a while ago. I'm working on building a complete charicter list as a go. I don't think I'll put it in until I complete the book. I also have the cliff notes and some critical essays on the work wich might be useful, anyone else doing that sort of thing? --Mr. Dude ^{†@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ} 03:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wonderful. It might be nice if we could improve the character articles and other spinoffs as we go. I've been a bit slow in getting going, but I'll catch up, I promise. :) Ambi 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've got 120 pages left in the Penguin edition; how are you guys coming? Critical essays would be great; right now the plot summary makes it seem like the story is the whole point! E. M. Forster must be rolling in his grave. I'd love to get a hold of some essays on Thackeray's "chattiness", e.g. "this could be a story about lords and ladies, or about kitchen-room scandal, or another Udolpho — but it's not". --Mgreenbe 12:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Readings been a bit slow going (ok really slow), I'm not giving up though. I'm proabably a bit more than a third of the way through. it doesn't help that the amount of charicters in the book is bordering on mind boggling, I seem to be spending just as much time reading as i am building my charictar list. --Mr. Dude ^{†@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ} 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmm. Thinking about the actual meaning of the book, I think that the better Wikipedia article will ignore plot — the plot is absurd, all a device deserving only cursory summary — but instead focus on character. So that gives us bits on Amelia, Becky, Dobbin, George, Jos, and Rawdon for a start. These are the main sections, which can give good analysis. The parents, cousins, and Miss Crawley deserve an explanation of their vanity. After this, we need some critical analysis. --Mgreenbe 09:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Ah! Hello, anyone still working on this? I just left a notice on Vanity Fair's talk page - for the basic reasons stated above, I too think the 'plot summary' leaves a lot to be desired; a character list sounds brilliant. Maybe starting with the more 'notable' ones could make it less daunting. Candle-ends 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I supported a novel even though the date is past...hope that is OK... Lesdumort

Well, according to the WikiProject bylaws, you'll be fined in biweekly increments for five weeks, followed by triweekly for two, and so on ad nauseam vel infinitum, whichever comes first. :) --Mgreenbe 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1.0 core topics

Hello. I'm part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics working toward a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD).

If you're interested in helping, these are some related articles we plan to include:

If you think any of these are ready, please let us know. You can see our proposed initial quality standards or learn more about the overall project.

Thanks. Maurreen 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

I really like this project idea, and I am going to become a member, but this page needs a serious update. The January 1 date is long past. If we are going to let the books stay there longer, we need to remove the Jan. 1 limit, and just use it for the day the new book will be chosen (if we decide to do that...). I think the list of nominations should stay regardless of whether they are chosen or not, so that we have more to go by later. I say we add a link on this page to Project Gutenberg, because since all of these texts must be in the Public Domain, Gutenberg is almost sure to have it. That way those who don't want to buy it don't have to. Online texts are great! --Cromwellt|Talk 21:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added In Our Time, then realized that it probably isn't yet in the Public Domain. I was going to remove it, then realized that neither is Absalom, Absalom! Should we really stick to books in the PD? As another question, why is our template called "WCBnow" instead of "WBCnow"? --Cromwellt|Talk 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that PD is a smaller concern than, "Who has time to read a book and critical commentary?" I've read Vanity Fair and have my own ideas about presenting the material, but don't have the time to read criticism — I don't even have easy access to a humanities library where I can take out books freely.

In general, I'd be fine with a PD-only restriction; that list of nominations are just what I had on my bookshelf; some I've already read, others I don't have time to read. --Mgreenbe 22:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the dates and times to the two real contenders, swept out the rest of the cruft. As for WCBnow...good question. Talk about disorganized. :) --Mgreenbe 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy Change?

A very long time ago, T.S. Eliot observed that literary works exist in two time periods -- their own chronological time, and eternity.

Why not design the book club around this idea -- an eternal conversation on classic works of literature.

That way, we can read whatever we want, whenever we want, comment when we feel the desire, and have a vast wealth of commentary that extends over days, weeks, months, years, decades. . . .

The current approach seems to require people to agree to read the same book at the same time, Oprah Winfrey style. Why don't we be more liberated and take advantage of the resources of the internet to carry on multiple conversations.

In my case, I teach English literature in South Korea, so I am usually reading or reviewing a book for classes about once every two or three weeks -- and often am teaching a book or poem I have taught before, so I might want to enter into a dozen conversations or many more each year -- if they were always there to join.

I think, over time, this more flexible approach would attract more members and more activity.

Fredricwilliams

Maybe a combination will work best. How about we have a focus book, but we include conversations on a wide variety of books (any books that have been focus books in the past, maybe). The only requirement for joining the conversations will be having read the book. Just an idea. We really need to update this page, guys. The nominations say "March"! And when did we decide on The Razor's Edge? I guess I missed that vote. --Cromwellt|Talk 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]