FANDOM


Forums: Helping Hand > Change to Novels Articles?

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

On our wiki, articles about novels usually include only the info box, a quote provided by the publisher and possibly a short summary. Book articles on the main Wikipedia contain much more information such as publication history and critical reception. Here's an example of a wiki article on a well-known popular fantasy novel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher%27s_Stone

Is there any reason we shouldn't include info such as critical response to FR novels? I suppose the only real downside is that most FR novels have only customer reviews on Amazon.com and the ratings can change over time as more customers add their opinions. Most FR novels are too obscure to be reviewed by "recognized" literary reviewers such as the NY Times. Adding this information to the FR wiki gives the reader additional information when deciding whether or not to read the book.
Boo Too - "Go for the eyes!" (talk) 12:12, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


Most of our pages for novels, sourcebooks and most media are fairly basic, as you describe. Stubs, really. But check out Darkwalker on Moonshae, Dungeon magazine 75, and Realms of Valor for examples of what more we can do. Indexes of material and notes of interesting background are useful. I feel our main focus should be on the Realmslore with these pages.

But I don't see why not. It could spruce up a featured source page. It's a bit more work, but only a little more in the way of what we could do with background.

Consider it an experiment. Go ahead, give it a shot, and we'll see if it takes off. :)

However, I'd rather see only official reviews, those that are noteworthy, relevant, balanced, and made by professionals, not fans who are unskilled reviewers and could be biased one way or another. You or I could write a review, and say a book is great or a bit crap, but it's not our part to judge here. That may narrow the possibilities for reviews down, to probably only R.A. Salvatore, but it keeps things reliable. No more than a line and a score should be quoted, with a link to the online review for further reading, if possible.

Amazon and other ratings can change, as you say, so it wouldn't be worth our time to keep up with them.

Fan reaction is an interesting thing to include, though difficult to cover and cite. Perhaps a short summary, and a link or to discussions on the Wizards or Candlekeep forums would be suitable.

— BadCatMan (talk) 12:51, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


Publication history is fine because it is factual, but what source(s) would we use for critical reviews of novels that pertain only to the FR community? Are there any? Opinions are like a$$holes: everybody has one and they usually stink. I would rather this wiki stick to the facts as much as possible. However, editors should feel free to add external links to reviews and opinion pieces (or even Amazon ratings) so interested readers can explore if they so desire. A list of links to reviews seems like a very appropriate addition for our wiki. I also do not object to forum posts about novels, etc. where discussion and opinion are expected. Then add the forum article to the list of links. How's that smell?
Moviesign (talk) 14:23, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.