Talk:National Novel Writing Month/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dead Link?

I tried to go to the BBC Radio Scotland writing event link "Write Here, Right Now" [1], but couldn't find it on the BBC Radio Scotland webpage. Is this event still going on? If so where is the link to it? 166.70.24.133 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Logo

"No. The Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony logos are all just their names in a different font. This book cover is COPYRIGHTED and DOESN'T REPRESENT NaNo AS WELL". [2]

First, that is not the logo, it's the title banner from the official web site.[3] The logo, as far as I can tell, is a variation on the guy with the pencil and features a more 'typewriter-ey' font, as in the 2006 participant icons. Take a look at the store on the web site. See anything for sale that features the curvy-lettered font?

Second, its' true that the cover the book is copyrighted, but so are any graphics taken from the official site, and both qualify as fair use.

If someone wants to take the time to find and upload one of those icons or a picture of the pencil man, or possibly a higher quality image of one of the posters or t-shirt designs, great, but the header from the web site is not the NaNoWriMo logo, and does not 'represent' the event any better than the cover of the official manual written by the event's creator. It's fine on their web site in context, but it looks awkward and ugly in the article. -- Vary | Talk 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The curvy logo is better than a book. A newbie would take a quick glance at the page, and think "NNWM is a book." Either find a better logo, leave it alone, or have no image. A book is exactly opposite from the point. It's about NNWM, not an associated book. The curvy logo is interim, until we can find something better. Scepia 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The curvy logo is better than a book.

Once again, it's not a logo. It's the title header from the web site. If it were the logo, it'd be somewhere other than just at the top of the web page (on merch in the store, on official mailings, etc.) The fact that some web designer saved the image as 'bannerLogoType.gif' (And pencilman right next to it as 'bannerLogo.gif) does not make the curvy-fonted title the event's logo.

A newbie would take a quick glance at the page, and think "NNWM is a book."

It's not an image of a book, it's an image of the cover from a book. A 'newbie', having no context, would not immediately recognize the cover and would, at the very least, have to proceed to the caption.

Either find a better logo, leave it alone, or have no image. [snip] The curvy logo is interim, until we can find something better.

As I can't do image uploads, I can't help you with replacing the image. If I could, I would have done it already and skipped this whole discussion. But what you've supplied is not a logo. At all. I would say that the cover would be a better 'interim' image than what you've supplied, but I'm willing to bet I'd just be reverted again, and this is getting silly. Since it's not the logo and doesn't represent the event in any meaningful way, the curvy font title is no better than no image at all. So we're going to have to go with the 'no image' option for now, until someone else is willing to find and upload one of the alternatives I mentioned above. -- Vary | Talk 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to anyone who feels like uploading an image, the 06 poster would be a good choice, as would the pencilman, IMO. -- Vary | Talk 00:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the pencilman and put him in the article, it is not overly detailed as the poster or unofficial as the curvy logo. Scepia 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for the record, NaNoWriMo has an official media kit that includes their official logo. This logo is the pencilman picture, with an additional "National Novel Writing Month" text at the bottom. The current logo in the article is close enough, so let's leave it, unless someone wants to use the official one. Shadow1 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Fact

What is up with all the extensive uses of this template in the Community and Programs section? Of all of the uses, only one of them appears to be a piece of information that requires a source, that of AlphaSmart donating to the laptop program. All of the others are non-controversial and easily verifiable pieces of information. I see no reason why most of them can't be removed. 121.208.74.159 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If they are easily verifiable, show that they are referenced in a reliable source, not just the claims made out of thin air. It is the burden of proof on those who want to include material to have it based on reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A, as Shadow1 and Zweifel pointed out, such uncontroversial statements do not require individual citations. These are all covered in the event's faq, which is already included as a reference. See When to cite.

B, if you feel these statements absolutely must be cited individually, it would take you all of ten minutes to find and add the sources yourself. Maintenance tags are for problems that require specialized skills or extensive work. Slapping on a tag requesting that someone else do a job you could easily do yourself is just lazy. Drive by tagging is bad enough when the work actually needs to be done, but completely counterproductive when, per policy, there isn't actually a problem. See WP:Cite -- Vary | Talk 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

comment your intended slur of drive by tagging is a moniker that I will wear with pride. Each {fact} tag that either prompts an editor to provide a valid source or reminds a reader that the information here is only as good as it's source is a {fact} tag that is as good as gold to me.4.158.222.169 12:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It may make you feel good, but using a tag when you could just as easily make the change yourself does not actually make the encyclopedia better. It's lazy. Tagging something that doesn't even need to be changed, whatever your misguided reading of WP:OR might tell you, is just a waste of everyone's time. Tags have their place, and I'm not saying they don't, but the way you were using them here does not help anyone.

Also, please be careful not to break up signed comments. It's confusing and makes the talk page harder to read. -- Vary | Talk 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is not my job to provide cites from reliable sources - it is the job of the person making the claim to show reliable sources back the statements made. And after reading the FAQ posted as the 'source'- the statements made there do not support the actual claims in the article. Try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes, it does. If you feel that these items should have individual citations, you are welcome to add them, but per policy things like this don't need to be cited individually, so the tags you're adding are simply inappropriate. -- Vary | Talk 21:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

no - the source says the forums exist - it does not say anything about 'community being integral part of experience' - FAQ says ML may plan parties - to claim every region has a party will need a different source. The 'source' says what it says - dont suggest it says anything other than what it actually does.207.69.137.41 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake. "The forums, also known as message boards, are one of the highlights of the NaNoWriMo experience, allowing you to connect with other novelists just like yourself from all over the world." "Visit your area's regional lounge in the NaNoWriMo forums to find the closest party to you." Don't expect word for word quotes, that's what we call copyvio. Now stop being such a pedant, please, and quit wasting my time. -- Vary | Talk 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The quotes you have provided prove my claim - the quotes say what they say and to go beyond what they actually say is WP:OR and other sources would be needed to support such claims.207.69.137.25 12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, bollocks, actually. The sourcing on the previous version was perfectly adequate and if you think it was or OR you really need to re-read that policy. It was explained to you by three different established editors and one fellow anon that there was no problem with any of those statements. But if the changes you've made to the article make you happy, and will make you stop with the pointless tagging, then great. -- Vary | Talk 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI I have read WP:SYN and WP:PSTS from which the applicable: "Like primary sources, secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not verifiable from either the sources themselves or from other sources." (emphasis added) - a restatement of my position: you can use what the source actually says, but to make other claims is not allowed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk • contribs) 15:35, November 18, 2007

I've read them, too, thank you. I've been with the project for more than two years. I know synth when I see it. These were, as has been pointed out to you by multiple experienced editors, entirely uncontroversial claims that aren't in any way problematic, so I'm frankly puzzled as to why you're insisting on throwing around accusations of Original Research.

One example: you removed the phrase "some participants also gather in person" as original research. The faq states that there are in-person gatherings in most regions that are served by Municipal Liasons, and that participants can use the forums to find the ones nearest them. Do you think the faq is lying? Because if not, then at the very least some participants must be gathering in person somewhere. Which would make that a sourced statement, and not OR.

Words like 'many,' 'most' and 'some' are often used as qualifiers to avoid making broad statements that may be untrue, or at least unprovable. When they're abused (ie: "Some people would say you're being ridiculous") they're called 'weasel words', but they're often entirely appropriate ways of using information provided in sources to create encyclopedic content without any danger of OR, and without word-for-word cribbing. You say you've read the relevant policies, but I'd suggest you take another look at the examples to see exactly what we're trying to avoid here. -- Vary | Talk 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The "some participants also gather in person" was removed not as OR, but as unnecessary. Sorry I didn't specifically mention that in the edit history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk • contribs) 19:18, November 18, 2007

The same point still stands for the rest of it, though. The phrases "For many participants" and "Most areas" are both uncontroversial and supportable by the org's web site. My point is that this is not the sort of thing to be edit warring over, and I hope in future you'll consider thinking more carefully before you accuse other editors of OR. When several longtime editors explain to you that your interpretation of policy is incorrect, it's usually a clue that they might not be the ones who are wrong. -- Vary | Talk 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"For many participants" requires someone to be making a value judgement about the participant, and unless that value judgement comes from a reliable source that you are quoting, for you to make it based on the information you see on the site is Original Research. And no where on the FAQ does it say how many of the ML's actually arrange get togethers and for you to assume that 'most' do is another leap away from what your source actually says.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk • contribs) 22:47, November 18, 2007

And there you go assuming the faq is lying again. You're still not getting the concept of non-controversial information - that is, anything you can learn from a quick browse of the web site - but you know what? Fine. I'm sick of trying to explain this to you. Not that majority overrides policy, but it should tell you something that the majority of editors (read: absolutely everyone else) on this page have agreed that your reading of the policy is incorrect. But if you want to go on thinking you're the only one who knows how this place works, go for it. -- Vary | Talk 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?

I know there have been criticisms of NaNoWriMo, saying that the strict time limit and word targets are against the so-called "spirit" of writing. Any thoughts on including such a section? --Jake Papas (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you got any reliable sources directly commenting on NaNoWriMo, it is fair game. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Make that "if and only if". They need to be fairly respectable sources, too, per WP:RS. But yes, having found those sources it would be fine to expand the article. --Masamage ♫ 03:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Source/Results

According to an article in the Bastrop Daily Enterprise[4], as of October 2008 26 participants have sold their NaNo novels for publication. It also notes that 20% of the participants are novelists and professional writers. Might be useful for some non-NaNo sourced content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

Per WP:NAME#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations, shouldn't this article be named National Novel Writing Month rather than the abbreviated NaNoWrimo? The official name is the full "National Novel Writing Month" not the short form. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this instance, that guideline conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME. Six of one half a dozen of the other. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but of the two, National Novel Writing Month is more understandable and recognizable to people who don't participate. If you are talking to someone about it and you say "I'm doing NaNo or NaNoWriMo" no one has a clue what you mean unless you already talked to them about it or they are participating themselves. "National Novel Writing Month" conveys at least something. Also, if we look at it primarily from the view of sources, "National Novel Writing Month"[5] has slightly more Google News hits than "NaNoWriMo"[6] which would seem to indicate that both are commonly used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and expand it per the first guideline. "NaNoWriMo" isn't really a different or distinct enough name for me to feel like which one is more common really comes into the picture (unless there was a very, very significant difference, which there doesn't appear to be). They're essentially the same name, but one's shorter, and one's more meaningful. Of those two considerations, I lean more toward the latter. --Masamage ♫ 19:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont object - the reasonings above seem valid enough, as long as the redirect is saved. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Gotta have the redirect. --Masamage ♫ 01:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh definately! Would basically ask for a move over redirect, where National Novel Writing Month is deleted so then the article can be moved there, creating instant redirect as well :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved. -- Vary Talk 05:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Gracias! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

¡MUCHO GRACIAS! :P Sorry about the edit thingy... moocows rule 05:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some cites

Sorry for the drive-by. Here are a few sources that might help get rid of that references template:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=835782 - an interview with Chris Baty on NPR
• http://www.spacejock.com.au/NaNoWriMo.html - a page by Simon Haynes, author of the Hal Spacejock series.
• http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/11/what_good_is_na.html - an article on Websnark

--203.33.164.137 (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Writers Digest listed NaNoWriMo as one of it's 2008 best sites if that helps. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 09:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations....

Oh boy....

First off, what are we looking to cite from third-party sources? A lot of the citations here are either from the official FAQ or quotes from Baty, which I would think should be cited from the official site anyway. If someone can tell me what I'm looking for I'd be happy to look for sources; this page is probably going to be pretty easy to cite as Nano isn't really obscure.

For the one citation needed tag I see, I'm not precisely sure what about word wars we're trying to cite, but the official #nanowrimo FAQ mentions them [7] and that's probably as citable as you're going to get--the #nanowrimo chatroom is run by Nanoers who are not part of the official staff. If we're just trying to cite the part about them being between five and twenty minutes, that part can be removed; that was the trend a couple of years ago, but now they range anywhere from 1 to 60 minutes (the wordwar bot's limits, seen here: [8]).

Let me know what else is wanted. That tag's apparently been around a while so if no one gets back to me I'll probably be bold and remove it. Tiakalla (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If the bulk of the sources are all from the site, then it brings to question whether its notable if not one else is talking about it, hence the need for more third party sources (and really coverage in general). It also really needs a refimprove tag because of the unreferenced stuff, and an infobox. The citation tag on "Word Wars" needs to confirm the whole sentence: that there is an official NaNo IRC channel, and that Word Wars happen. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard, since it gets mentioned in newspapers and magazines and things from time to time. Just gotta find the darn things. --Masamage ♫ 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...I keep meaning to come back to this one to do some source checking/finding but then get distracted :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it does get mentioned in other sources. In doing a little searching, I found that their media page lists a massive amount of Nano articles. I can also think of two negative sources off the top of my head, but one's a blog and one's an editorial in an e-zine, so not sure how reliable those would be. As for the channel, it's on the website [9], which seems to be the best source, but I'm not sure how to source that word wars do happen. Do you want one of the links above? The chat FAQ seems the best (I just noticed it's also linked from the official site, so) Or like a log of the chatroom showing that wars do happen? Tiakalla (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A chat log would violate multiple policies. If the "wars" aren't mentioned in other sources or in the chat FAQ, the line needs to be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that there is a Word Wars forum [10] where in fact word wars are taking place would be enough? Word wars are not solely the realm of the chat room. Dragonchilde (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, same thing. Forums are not reliable sources. Their existence in either place is not enough to make it worth mentioning, nor can it be claimed that they are "official" without, at minimum, NaNo itself saying so. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I do know the Young Writer's Program, at least [11] has an official word wars "game" link right there on the front page. There's not, to my knowledge, any specific mention of the word wars on the adult site other than the forums themselves. (and in fact, that forum was mostly created just to stop the word wars from filling up other forums!) -- Dragonchilde (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I know they're sometimes mentioned in the official podcasts, but I can't cite an episode number and the show notes aren't thorough enough for me to find one without re-listening to the whole back catalog. Chris Baty does mention the word wars forum in his pep talk emails from time to time as an option for those who can't get to an in-person 'write in' event. (Nov 17 08 for one.) If we were just talking about threads being created by members of the forums, that wouldn't do, but as it's a dedicated subsection created by the organizers which participants are specifically encouraged to use, I think we can safely call it an official part of the program. The problem is which source to use inline in the article; the description of the official site's word wars subforum gives the most information, while in Baty's comments one is generally expected to already know what a word war is. But if there are objections to using the 'official' bits of the forum as sources (that is, things written by the organizers, as opposed to members), do we use one of Baty's mailings, which only source the existence/endorsement of the 'wars' and not what they actually are? Or both? -- Vary | (Talk) 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Does anyone know how NaNoWriMo is pronounced? If so, could he add it to the first paragraph. Thanks. Theresavalek (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, as its subjective and irrelevant. Pronounce it however you want. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Chris Baty calls it nanno-RYE-moe, and I think readers want to know how things are pronounced. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=835782

Any chance one of you very clever participants could add this info and the link to the npr story. Thanks. Theresavalek (talk)

I think most people pronounce it that way, and again, the pronunciation of the abbreviation is trivial at best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can work out the IPA notation for the pronunciation I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to add it, Teresavalek. But I don't think the article is terribly lacking without it. -- Vary | (Talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The website FAQ used to have an entry stating that however anyone pronounced it (Na-no-rye-mo, Nan-no-ree-mo) was pretty much okay, but that seems to have been taken down. Meanwhile, yeah, everyone on WriMoRadio pronounces it like the beginning of the word "write". That being the case, though, I think the pronunciation is pretty much implied by what the abbreviation actually stands for? So I think it's unnecessary. I wouldn't mind it being written out if other people really want it, I guess, but I also don't know IPA. :P --Masamage ♫ 02:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"or simply write the first fifty thousand words of a novel which may require more text to complete"

I don't agree with this statement. The article claims that no pre-written material may go into the body of the text, but can people not continue a previously started novel provided they continue from the point they stopped, and do not include the previous 50,000 words in the November Month? - 137.195.250.2 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what the sources say. For official interpretation, you will need to go to NaNoWriMo. (if you start a Wikipedia account, we can also discuss this on your talk page or mine. But article talk pages are not a Forum, they are for discussing how to improve the content of the article.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's okay to ask questions if our own article is confusing; it shouldn't be, after all. So, OP, what that sentence means is not that you take words from another novel, but that the novel may not be finished by the time you hit 50,000 words, and that's okay--you still win. But yes, you can then go on the next year and write the next 50,000 words of the same novel. You just can't count any of your old words. --Masamage ♫ 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a reword to make clearer? Instead of "Participants either write a complete novel of fifty thousand words or simply write the first fifty thousand words of a novel which may require more text to complete" maybe something like "Participants write fifty thousand words, which may form a complete novel or only part of one." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the rules at the site it makes it clear that to "officially win" you must start from scratch and not just write 50K more words on a pre-existing work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. You can officially win with any 50,000 new, November-written words. You're strongly encouraged not to start with an old project, is all, and only because it tends to be demoralizing and stressful. --Masamage ♫ 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the source [12] But then again, they are not gonna check. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I say bah on that. NaNoWriMo has a pronounced Ignore All Rules thing going for it. :) Anyway, I think Chris Baty states it as not-a-rule-per-se in his book, which is probably what I was remembering up there. --22:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You will have to gain consensus that ignoring WP:V for this point on this article improves the encyclopedia.(ec) -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No I won't, as this is not and should not be mentioned in the article at all and is a tangent from the original question. --Masamage ♫ 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) so can we use the source above to clarify any confusion in the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any particularly strenuous objections to my doing so, I'm going to change this. The statement is simply not true: The website FAQ is pretty clear that to officially "win" you must write from scratch. It's not even a suggestion, as some FAQ items can be. It's "Yes, you have to write from scratch". There will be some updates added upon site relaunch this October that will clarify actual rules for winning the challenge (and yes, it is a self challenge, but stating that the rules say something they don't is still factually incorrect.) If no material objections are made by that time, I will update this section and include the appropriate reference. Dragonchilde (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Per your revelation on your user page, and your note here that you are associated with NaNoWriMo, it would be inappropriate for you to do much, if any, editing to this article per WP:COI. If you feel the statement should be changed, please note the sources here and what you feel is incorrect and allow neutral editors to make such changes.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do! I don't mind not editing - Was not planning on making any changes at all until solid sources are available either way, so with luck someone will take up the banner on that one! --Dragonchilde (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just adding the new link to the official rules, as added this year, if someone could take a look: http://www.nanowrimo.org/eng/hownanoworks

Last paragraph are the requirements for being an official NaNoWriMo winner. Dragonchilde (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Twitter feed

From WP:ELOFFICIAL - "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." I see nothing in the rule cited in the first removal WP:EL, of which WP:ELOFFICIAL is a sub heading) that says you can't add the twitter link. Am I missing it? -- 68.33.14.248 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Twitter feed does not provide any unique content and is purely a social networking link. The very next sentence of the guideline you are quoting uses that exact example - do not add Twitter links just because they exist. Stop readding a link that has been disputed as inappropriate. Further, read the talk page along with the guideline page. Just because the template exists does not mean you should put it on every article. It was nearly deleted because of people inappropriately doing just that. Twitter feeds, in general, should only be added if they are the only official site of a company or person. This one is not and is not even particularly relevant considering even NaNo itself doesn't really promote it much. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope of article?

Hmm...

Would it be better to move some of these timed contest links off to the list of timed artistic contests and leave only the ones that are directly related/inspired by NaNo (such as EdMo, WriYe, JulMo)? What do you guys think? Tiakalla 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - they are clearly out of scope of the article which is a specific event organized by OoLL. It would be similar to the article for McDonalds spending a quarter of its writing on other restaurants that are not a part of the McD's franchise simply because they are restaurants like McDonals. Unless someone can put forward a valid explation showing how they are within article scope, I will be removing them207.69.137.36 02:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the non-OoLL sponsored contests are still a part of the idea of NaNoWriMo. While I agree that they probably shouldn't have their own sections in this article, would anyone object to giving them their own page, now that that the list of timed artistic contests has been removed? (Thirteen figure skater (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, there is objection as they are not notable. Most have either been deleted before or noted as being not notable. They have to meet the same notability requirements as any other topic, namely significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Thus far, NaNo and maybe the script version are the only ones with that notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose to merge the content from the Chris Baty article into here, since I do not believe that article can stand on its own. His only notability comes from starting NaNoWriMo. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal denied. Article stands on it's own. Baty's one notability is enough. His presence here is more justified than most of the people in wiki. You take him out, you may as well take out all the celebs etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.201.97 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Support the merge. Despite the IP's assertion, Baty is not notable beyond NaNo. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I love Chris Baty, I also support the merge. As of right now almost all the the Chris Baty article is about NaNoWriMo. Also, to date, his only published work is related to NaNoWriMo. If someone could expand the article to contain a significant amount of content unrelated to NaNoWriMo, then the article could stand alone. Right now though, I think that the Chris Baty article sould just be pasted into a section of the NaNoWriMo article.
-- Fl1n7 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the only person opposing merger is doing so from arguments that do not match with Wikipedia's standards of notability for articles, I will merge the article... which in actual practice will consist of only redirecting that page here, as there's nothing of note on that article which advances the overall topic beyond what is already here. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

InNoWriMo

If it's international rather than national, it should be renamed InNoWriMo.

213.48.46.141 (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC) (Colin)

The NaNoWriMo forums have a post concerning this debate: [13]. Unfortunately, you need to deal with this debate over at NaNoWriMo, not here on Wikipedia. Matthewrbowker (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to "deal with the debate". I simply wanted to make the point that given the activity is International, not National, the 'Na' should be an 'In'. I don't actually expect Americans to change the name to include non-Americans. 213.48.46.141 (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC) (Colin)

My mistake, I misunderstood your post. Matthewrbowker (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Intro

I'm fairly new to discovering this event, so obviously I came here to get a (hopefully) succinct overview. The introduction, the section before the table of contents, doesn't have the actual month in which the event takes place. It mentions July, but only to say that the event started in July 1999. I'm assuming that's the month? Was the explicit mention of the month an overlooked item or left out for some reason? --Alan daniel (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It takes place in November, which is mentioned several times in the rest of the article. Thanks for pointing out that this is missing from the lead; I've rephrased to add a mention there. Princess Lirin (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

YWP NaNoWriMo?

I think that the JK-12 version of NaNoWriMo, should be a separate article that is linked back to this one. http://ywp.nanowrimo.org/ Bye, have to get back to writing my novel! Cniesen (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of participants?

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any sources on the demographics of participants in NaNoWriMo? Anecdotally, I have the impression that they're overwhelmingly female, but perhaps I'm mistaken; I just wonder if there are any statistics on who takes part in this. Robofish (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of anywhere that there's official stats. In the Teen forum there is a "Girl OR Guy" thread, which shows many more females than males, and a suprising number of gender non-conformists. Of course, not everyone responds and it can't be cited. A better source might be the official feedback survey results, which included a gender question, but I don't know if those are ever released. 87.112.47.244 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Winners

In looking at the list of winners that have been published, I found that two of them, The Benefactor by Vito Genovese</nowiki> and Murderous Creatures by Dorian Grimes,</nowiki> were published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform", which is a division of Amazon.com that does print-on-demand books. This is highly indicative that the books were self-published. Absent any evidence of notability, I think those entries should be deleted from the list. --EricJamesStone (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

References