Talk:Roland in Moonlight

Roland in Moonlight (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 18 February 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Categories

Is there anyone who can provide a third-party opinion as the categories Philosophy, Poetry, and Religion have been removed from this article twice while it seems clear to me that this book belongs within all three of these categories? --Jjhake (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjhake: Please don't use {{help me}} for help with content discussions, which this mostly is. Also, that template is normally used on your own talk page.

There is a Category:Philosophy books that you could try. The main reason those broader categories are inappropriate is because narrower categories should be used.

If you want to improve the article, don't worry so much about categories; instead work on things that stick out as not belonging: peacock terms, unsourced commentary about the book, and links to the publisher advertising the book. Also, if the photo of Hart and Roland is in the public domain, you must say that in the licensing clause. Calling it your own work and releasing it yourself are both incorrect. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this help. I see now how I was misunderstanding the categories and have adjusted to only "books about..." categories that are directly relevant. Although I have no connection to Hart, I asked about that photo of him and Roland, and I received an email back from David Hart explicitly saying that he was happy to release that photo into the public domain. I'll go try to update that status on that image. I'll also go through the article again looking for "peacock terms, unsourced commentary about the book, and links to the publisher advertising the book" as you suggest. Any such help is much appreciated. Jjhake (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seeking feedback on categories from User 103.21.175.59

I've left a comment on the talk page for User: 103.21.175.59, and I am seeking to understand why this anonymous editor has removed these categories forom this article:

Books about animals
Philosophy books
Metaphysics books
Epistemology books
Religious studies books

This book is clearly about all of these topics and is written in the long-standing dialog form of many other philosophical text. Please provide reasons so that I can better understand. --Jjhake (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"not how it is done you fool" from User: 43.249.196.226 not helpful feedback

User_talk:43.249.196.226, with your undo of a recent edit of mine on the Roland in Moonlight article, your comment of "not how it is done you fool" does not help me figure out how best to relay these category connections for this book. Please provide more helpful feedback here or on Talk:Roland_in_Moonlight. Thank you for any help as I seek to identify this book with the key topics that it covers (and in which the author is a recognized and credentialed scholar). --Jjhake (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to seek feedback from User 103.21.175.59 (now on "unreliable source" and "See also" section)

User:103.21.175.59, you continue to edit here without answering any questions on this article talk page or your your own talk page where I have posted questions before and again now. Most recently, you've made two edits that I don't understand:

First, you removed links to fairytale, Category:Works about the history of philosophy, and the entire See also section all with only the comment "stop overlinking" in your edit. You are removing items critical to providing a clear summary of what this book it is about. When Fragrant Peony undid this edit of yours (who has The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar on their talk page), you quickly restored your own edits without any reason given or any response on the talk page.
Second, you went on to make another unhelpful edit with no reasons given when you added "unreliable source" notifications for links to First Things where David Bentley Hart first started to write about two of the characters in this book. How are these in any way "unreliable sources"?

Please stop making edits without engaging in feedback and dialog here on the article talk page.--Jjhake (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons for my edits. Your edits are crap. Go off and find out how wikipedia works. As for fairy tale it was misspelt in the lede and not linked. 103.21.175.59 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad for any spelling fixes. Thank you. As for your other edits:

What is wrong with the Background section and its references? I don't understand your concerns there at all or see any reason for them.
As for your removal of the See also section, you say "overlinking and not how you do headers for Seealso." I don't think any of those links show up elsewhere in the article, and they communicate topics closely related to the book in an efficient way. What is a better solution?
Finally, I still don't understand your original removal of any category related to this being a book about philosophy (which I've not tried to add back in as a category lately after your repeated removals). However, this is very much a book about philosophy by a trained philosopher writing in a dialogue form in which much philosophy has been written. Do you have a specific concern with the book being recognized as a book about philosophy by category?

Jjhake (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With point 3 above, I found these categories most specific to the content of the book:

Metaphysics literature
Aesthetics literature
Philosophy of mind literature
Books about folklore

Any issues with these? Jjhake (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify specific unreliable sources and overlinking for discussion

@103.21.175.59: I see that you added a require cleanup tag again at the top of this page citing unreliable sources and overlinking. You have been asked here on your talk page by User:Lemonaka to engage on this talk page about edits to this article, and I have asked you for your specific concerns with unreliable sources, so that we can talk them over. Please let me know what is wrong with any sources.

As for loverlinking, I've removed the one duplicate link that I could find and all other links look helpful to communicating this book content. Please let me know what needs to be improved with links as well. Jjhake (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see on User talk:103.21.175.59 that there has been a one-week block on this IP address. Given that I have addressed these cleanup tag questions previously and gotten no feedback here when asked, I am removing the cleanup tag again for now. Please raise specific concerns here instead of repeatedly adding a cleanup tag. Jjhake (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aesthetics literature

@Carchasm: Can you explain why you removed "Category:Aesthetics literature" with the note "not about aesthetics" when the book is a work of philosophy and contains extended passages on aesthetics in Japanese and other Asian cultures as well as on the nature of beauty in general? Would it help to note some of these passages in the article? Jjhake (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. I removed the category because there wasn't any discussion of aesthetics in the article but if the book has it and the article body supports it I don't have any objections. - car chasm (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I’ll include it some time in the article body and then put the category back afterward. Thanks for noting the discrepancy. Jjhake (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]