Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair Use covers

[edit]

I saw that in the article The Vendor of Sweets, the book cover used is a copyrighted one, and is used under 'fair use'.

Is there any workaround to this? If I have the book, can I upload its picture under CC-BY-SA?

I'm slightly confused about this. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you own the book, the copyright to the cover image still belongs to the original artist, according to whatever the copyright term is from where it was first made. It looks like it's from 1967, so there could be some edge cases here. If it was first published in the US in without an explicit copyright notice, it's public domain now and you can upload the image -- you can check the inner flap of the book and the copyright page to look for a notice. If there is a copyright notice, it won't become public domain until 2062 (meaning we can only use a "fair use" low-resolution image until then). This chart has the details for figuring out other US books' status. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any special restrictions on where to get the 'fair use' pictures from? Because they aren't always seen on the publisher's website. Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. I believe any source for the image is OK, though it's important to upload fair use files to the English Wikipedia directly, not the Wikimedia Commons. The Wikipedia:File upload wizard will steer you in the right direction. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been using it and have added cover images for 3 books. Will continue to work on the backlog. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Kingsacrificer! I do this all the time, and have actually uploaded thousands of images like this, but would appreciate help in adding more such as this. Please join me. I used a combination of sources, from Goodreads, to Archive.org, to Amazon or Abebooks, or other places when available. Glad to see another lover of adding book cover images. The list (as I write this) is around 1803 listed books deep, but I think with some concerted work, we could get the list down to 900 or below and keep it there! Iljhgtn (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is now in the 1700s in total count. I think we can get it down from there if we work together on this. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. Doing a few every week. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is super. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsacrificer The list is 1,743 deep as of this writing. That might be the lowest that it has ever been. If you @LEvalyn are able to contribute to this list, that would also help, I think we can get below 1,500 before the end of this month if we all work together! Iljhgtn (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many I have done already. I was on a break, will continue to do it again. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn
Is there a script that you guys are using for being efficient?
It is extremely tiresome to fill in the same information again and again, and perform the same steps again and again, only for different files and articles. Can there not be a way to do this quicker? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With my OCD I could literally do this for weeks straight without any sense of boredom at all. I would just go and go and go. I use no script; I just do it all manually in extreme volume. Sorry, I wish I had a better answer for you. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sure would help if others *wink* *wink* would join in and help us out @Kingsacrificer. ;) Iljhgtn (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way for us to request scripts? Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would start at the WP:Teahouse. I ask all kinds of questions in TH and they are all usually very helpful people. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went directly to the User scripts request page. Have tagged you, too. Kingsacrificer (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you did? That is cool. I did not even know that existed. I had some help with some scripts that I used to use, but I more recently turned some off related to edit summaries. That said, its been years since I created any or had help in creating any. I hope you get a solution. If so, I'd love to have it. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here. Did you not get the notification? Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover with competing editions, which to choose?

[edit]

As some of you already know, I spend a huge amount of my time updating and cleaning up the Category:Books with missing cover. I am always recruiting more people over to that by the way, with the goal being to get it eventually in the triple digits (<999) on an ongoing basis.

I was doing my normal book cover additions, when I found this book called Marble Hall Murders, a 2025 book which was released at the same time in both the UK as well as the USA. What do we do in these cases? Which book cover should we choose as the single choice of a non-free file for purposes of being used only to identify the book in the infobox? I chose the UK cover in this case because the author appears to have a UK background, but that might not be the right way to think about it. I'd appreciate any feedback on how to decide in cases like this.

When there is a clear case of competing book covers, but one is released before another, in those cases I just go with whichever came out earlier, but I am curious about what we would do when multiple might have been released around the same time or exactly the same time. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't run into anything like that, but I think your move, of the home country of the author's cover, is an alright solution when editions are released at the same time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will follow that guideline then unless anyone has a better idea or there is any MOS guidance on this. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NOVELS in the “images” section says The image displayed at the top of the article should be the most significant cover historically for that book; often this is the first edition cover, but occasionally it is not, if a later edition is better known. I agree that if there are several simultaneous first edition covers we should use the one from the author’s “home” country. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds like a plan. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Related question, that by coincidence I have just encountered (on an article I am making that is not in mainspace yet):
If most editions of a book use one cover, but the original uses something else, which do we prefer? Does more editions equal "most significant"?
For example, the second, third, fourth, and fifth editions of the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology (article in question) look like this: [1] [2] [3] [4] (pyramid with a big red moon)
While the first edition looks like this: [5] (eye of horus type thing)
I obviously haven't finished the article yet but I am curious how "most significant" intersects with that. If there was a different cover for every edition I would use the first but all but the first use the pyramid thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the clearest image of the earliest prominent edition should be used, and then a caption should be provided beneath that in the infobox in order to further clarify which edition it is (3rd edition for example), and the year of its issue. I do this often, but I am receptive to feedback on how to improve that system if anyone has ideas or if there is better MOS guidance already in effect. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See, but which counts as "earliest prominent"? The first edition of this book is pretty rare, but it is the first. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a problem any time we cannot have a clear-cut shared consensus-based understanding. I like "earliest" in terms of verifiable simple publication dates. No disputing it then on those grounds. Do we have any examples of "earliest prominent" where the community chose an option other than strictly "earliest"? Iljhgtn (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only one I'm aware of is And Then There Were None but there is, well, a rather obvious reason that was preferred. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, editors almost always prefer the first edition cover, even if a later cover is much better known, or had far larger print runs. Rarely, a well known later cover can also be included lower down the article - as in for example Testimonies (novel) - but unless there is something specific to be said about the later edition it’s likely to be challenged as improper fair use. That doesn’t apply of course if the second cover is out of copyright. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the only quasi exception is for cases where the first edition is not accessible, like at Elegiac Sonnets where I use the second edition because the first has not been digitized. But even then, the principle is basically “something is better than nothing”; I don’t prefer the second edition and if anyone did get access to the first edition they should put it in as a replacement. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...so, use the first edition cover of the occultism encyclopedia then, is what I'm getting? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yeah. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first edition is nearly always preferable. Maybe even always, if available. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a Book?

[edit]

Article Utrecht Atlas confuses me. Should it remain a part of this project? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say atlases are in scope, as it is a kind of reference work, and was bound like a book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thanks Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion?

[edit]

I can't find anything notable about this book Fatima_and_the_Daughters_of_Muhammad

I would have nominated it for deletion but there has already been a discussion on its deletion in 2011. I don't know what to do. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of contemporary reviews for the book on Persee.fr and elsewhere and the book has a lot of citations and discussions even in modern works (e.g. a google books search on either the french or english title). Some look like sigcov. For a book of its time (WP:OLDBOOK) I would say that is pretty notable, and you could build an article from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article in magazine?

[edit]

These essays Freedom to Dream and Freedom to Speak were published as articles in a magazine. Does it really belong with this project? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was it published as a book? If yes, then yes. If no, it is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like it was. It's also not a Wikipedia essay so not suitable for the "essays" WikiProject it was in; I did some re-classification. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not nominate it for deletion? Doesn't seem notable at all. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can, if you do a search and really think there’s nothing. But it already cites a journal article and the author is a Nobel laureate for literature so I’d expect more coverage to exist in pre-digital academic journals. Frankly, for Nobel laureates there’s a solid argument for WP:NBOOK#5. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untranslated books in foreign languages

[edit]

Book articles like In the Shadow of Your Wings confuse me. Should this even exist? I can't find a single mention of the English version of this book. The German one exists but does it really belong on the English Wikipedia? Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no English version of that book. However, not all English-titled Wiki articles for books correspond to an existing translation's title. These two links about article naming for books might interest you:
Should the article exist? If it meets WP:NBOOK, then yes. Articles are not redirected, merged or deleted as a result of their lack of sources published in English. Οἶδα (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's too many book articles that don't meet WP:NBOOK (the one I tagged above may or may not pass it).
Should I mark them as AfD in that case? Kingsacrificer (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsacrificer Why would you nominate an article for deletion just because it didn't have English sources? Non-English sources are fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant only the ones that don't meet the notability criteria. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should feel free to nominate for AfD any book if you’ve done a WP:BEFORE search and consider it unlikely that two in-depth, independent sources exist about the book. There are many articles that haven’t been properly looked at, and you’re likely to come across them while adding cover images. In the case of In the Shadow of Your Wings, though, the article cites three secondary sources so the first step of the BEFORE search would be determining that they don’t have significant coverage. Then, given the topic, I’d personally check German-language academic sources through a search somewhere like Google Scholar and Google Books. It may not be feasible to check digitized 1950s German newspapers but that’s the third place I’d expect coverage to exist, if there was any. For me, the book is the kind of thing I’d expect to be notable and so I wouldn’t choose to invest that time in it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this one seems notable based on my few searches. I should go through other ones though that are definitely not notable, but it slows down my momentum of the cover pages task so I kinda let it be. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do everything all at once, and your cover images are very helpful! You and Iljhgtn are doing wonderful work there. As a halfway measure you could consider tagging the questionable ones with {{Notability|Books}} so editors monitoring that maintenance category can find it for a closer look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good suggestion, thank you. I will try to keep that in mind. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do let me know if I am using this tag too liberally. Because I am finding a LOT of books don't meet the notability criteria. Like there's so many articles where there's only one book review as a reference and nothing else, so I mark it with this tag. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, LEvalyn. I see no reason for an AfD as the result will certainly be finding these same sources and likely more, and thus meeting WP:SIGCOV. Curiously, the article was created at the same time as its article on German Wikipedia, which I generally highly regard for its strictness and rigor. Though, it's worth mentioning that the article here had a WP:STARTOVER at the beginning of this year for alleged "incomprehensible material/original research". Οἶδα (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsacrificer's awesome new script

[edit]

User:Kingsacrificer created this awesome new script which makes the uploading of book covers so much easier. If you were intimidated before, it is so much easier now. Give it a try and help to decrease the backlog at Category:Books with missing cover! Iljhgtn (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link: User:Kingsacrificer/BookCover.js ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Kingsacrificer. I gave it a try and it worked as advertised. Οἶδα (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully with more people using this the book categories can finally be thinned out. More color and beauty on Wikipedia all thanks to more images. @Kingsacrificer, you should be proud of your work. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Kingsacrificer (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved praise. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need to add my praise too -- I just used it at Mad Prairie and I couldn't believe how fast and easy it made adding the image! Really great work. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Hopefully I can assist with more.
The next plans include introducing support for Film posters. I'm confused whether to add it in the same script or create another one. Kingsacrificer (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar could probably work well. Some slight modifications might be needed, but overall, the easier and more streamlined the better. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsacrificer also the category Category:Film articles needing an image I believe is the one that I'd reference for starting there. Though there may be others. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it more difficult to search and locate film posters though, so I am more efficient and comfortable with working on the book cover image additions, but its another area of Wikipedia that would absolutely benefit from a tool of this type. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it. Kingsacrificer (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Kingsacrificer. Yet again you're going above and beyond. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another questionable category

[edit]

I have been noticing many role-playing video game guides being added to this project as well. As stated in my previous topic, I wonder if this, too, belongs as part of this WikiProject.

An example article: Aliens Archive

(Sorry if I'm being too spammy) Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Books encompasses books of all subjects and genres, not just traditional works. From what I can tell, these video game guides, sourcebooks etc are still very much books. Published, printed books. Though it appears most of these articles are not included in WPBOOKS, so I am unsure. Most of these articles were created BOZ, so I am sure they have opinions on this matter. Οἶδα (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If those aren't part of the scope of this project then I won't add any more to it. I am unsure as well. BOZ (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BOZ @Οἶδα
The project scope states:

WikiProject Books organizes and promotes quality coverage of non-fiction books on Wikipedia.

It is unclear whether this means the project is EXCLUSIVELY for non-fiction books or not.
I would like the project coordinators to comment on this, but I'm not sure who is one. Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I think it would technically depend. I read through one of these books and it was basically documenting a body of lore, which would lead me to conclude it is fiction. Then I read through another and it was moreso a rulebook written like nonfiction. I think you could argue for the inclusion of books like the latter. However, I would be inclined to believe that the community here is not likely to participate in maintaining or improving this topic area. Οἶδα (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular category is tricky indeed. Most sources do not have a certain genre attached to the book, so yes, it will remain rather unclear. Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone with including gamebooks and such under WP Books because they aren't novels and so that project doesn't cover them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mass tagging at this WikiProject

[edit]

I received a request from @Kingsacrificer to mass tag Category:Books with missing cover pages with this WikiProject using AutoWikiBrowser. It would certainly take the effort out of tagging these pages and should be possible without any significant issues. It seemed non-controversial, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was okay with this before starting this task. Thank you! aaronneallucas (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I’ve always seen Books and Novels as mutually exclusive wikiprojects, eg, Novels is for fiction and Books is for everything else. I expect that many book articles missing cover images would be about fictional works that instead belong in the Novels wikiproject. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aplucas0703 Only tag nonfiction. Fiction books are for WP Novels. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid then that I wouldn't be able to run this task. Since the category is 1,750 pages, it would defeat the purpose of using AWB to speed up the task if each one had to be checked individually. I could make it skip pages already in another WikiProject related to books, but I couldn't verify each one without slowing down the task to a point that it would become more tedious to use AWB than doing it manually.
I can still run it on specific (or parent) categories that indicate a non-fiction work as an alternative, but that would take significantly longer, though I'm not opposed to this if it's desired. It would just be a much larger task requiring a different consideration of the scale. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could just post-task manually remove the WP Books tag from every article categorized in the novels categories. But I don't think it's that simple. As I mentioned below, there are several other articles that don't belong in this project. I fear I'd have to go through all 1750 of the pages to be accurate. No thanks lol! Οἶδα (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like any tagging effort will have to be limited to known non-fiction categories. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And when I search for "Books with missing cover" -"non-fiction books" -"novels", a lot of the articles I still see do not belong in WP Books. Οἶδα (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting this here. I was waiting for the above discussion on the scope of the project to resolve before creating this one. But I think the points mentioned by others are valid. It will have to be a tedious manual task.
Thank you for starting the discussion! Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done easily if there are known terms or known categories that list all novels. We can exclude those pages from the process, and for an additional check, we can add a condition for specific terms or categories so that if an article contains them, the page is simply skipped. This is not practical with AWB without manual checking, but it can be done with a Python script. Please let me know if you are still interested in this task, and if so, share any such terms or categories that should be skipped. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CC:@Οἶδα@LEvalyn@PARAKANYAA Kingsacrificer (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could add it to all pages that are categorized into both the subcats of Category:Non-fiction books by year and Category:Books with missing cover. Though, I quickly went through 10 of those articles and they were all already tagged with WP Books. Οἶδα (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, couldn't we mass tag everything in Non-fiction books by year, regardless of whether they're tagged with a missing cover? That category alone should be enough to mark the article as within the purview of Books. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point! Kingsacrificer (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the "missing cover" tag comes from {{Infobox book}} not having its image parameter filled. Category:Books with missing cover does not come from WikiProject templates on talk pages. If you remove the infobox it is removed from that category. And as I was saying, most of these articles that are categorized into both Category:Books with missing cover and Category:Non-fiction books by year subcats are already tagged with WP Books.
As stated above, Kingsacrificer has been trying to whittle down the articles in Category:Books with missing cover. I recall Iljhgtn is doing this as well; remember the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_20#Book_cover_parameters? What I believe is happening here now is that Kingsacrificer is trying to use the WikiProject Book talk template's parameter of |needs-infobox-cover= which populates Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of publications. For what exact reason I do not know. I'm assuming it's to use that as their personal maintenance category and to zero it out, because they couldn't do it to the other category without removing infoboxes altogether. Whereas the WP Books parameter can be easily added and removed. So now they've requested a user to mass tag every article in Category:Books with missing cover into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of publications as an alternative method? As already discussed, a great deal of the infoboxes lacking cover images are not nonfiction books and as such should not be tagged with WP Books. And I feel like the same issues we discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books/Archive_20#Book_cover_parameters are starting to creep back here. Do we really need to have that conversation once again? I hope not. Nevertheless, I'll repeat what I said there: Ostensibly the entire purpose of this categorization is to signal opportunity, not to serve any one editor's subjective interpretation of that opportunity in order to help them "cleanup" the category. I get wanting to further reduce the backlog, but if a book actually exists then it is more likely than not to have a cover, title page or frontispiece. Meaning the opportunity objectively exists, even if it is challenging. That makes keeping the categorization worth it for the community. Οἶδα (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The aim of my latest comment was simply to ensure that all articles in Category:Non-fiction books by year have the WikiProject banner, and are thus a part of the project. This was a separate request to my previous one regarding book cover. If it is not considered necessary at this point, that's fine with me. Kingsacrificer (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books&oldid=1328013337"