Talk:The Clique (series)

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merges

freedom is coming tomorrow prepared for your freedom -R.P.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.64.218 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the AfD for the novels in this series, except the first, there was no consensus for deleting them all, however the suggestion was also made to merge them all here to this page to give the series one good page instead of a ton of bad ones. For such a merge, short summaries would be added for each novel (rather than the bloated ones on each page), and the individual reviews would be used to build a full series reception section. I support such a merge and believe it would result in a much better article than the ones there are now. It would be similar to what is done with the numerous manga series, allowing for one good series article instead of a bunch of bad individual volume ones. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a merge is necessary. I could easily write reception sections for each of the books comparable to the one I wrote for The Clique after the AfD for that closed. But I agree, the plot sections definitely need to be trimmed down and cleaned up; I haven't read the books though, so I can't really do it myself. In any case, I don't think the current state of these articles is what we should be judging the merge on, but the potential state. And they certainly have the potential to be much better than they are. I'll have a crack at improving them, see what you think. (We can of course still have a full series reception section as well!)

On the subject of manga, I can see the sense in doing that because they tend to have ongoing stories with the chapters afterwards collected into volumes of a roughly similar size. Whereas novels tend to be contained stories in themselves, even in series works like this...

-- KittyRainbow (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the reception section at the Novel isn't really that big to me, particularly compared to the rest of the article. :P Its a film article, but Category 6: Day of Destruction is a "B-movie" but not that its reception section is much larger. Can the main Clique novel's section reach that size or depth? Can the others every have anything beyond a very brief reception sections? Do you fully believe that every last one could be taken up to a GA at the minimum (one standard used for other articles when debating merges)? If they can't add many other details as called for in the Novel MoS beyond the long plot, I think a merge would be best. While there are "contained stories" they are also an on-going series of stories around the same characters. In one merged article, there can be one good character section, one good overall plot section, one section setting if its necessary, a summary of each individual volume, and one very good reception section (and likely a decent little development section). I think such a single series article could be well crafted and easily be taken to GA or even FA, but could individual ones? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reception section for Halo: Contact Harvest (a featured article) it's hardly any longer than the current one in The Clique... so quantity does not necessarily equal quality. Also, note that Halo: Contact Harvest does not contain either a "themes" or "style" section, both of which are listed in the Novel MoS. Based on that I see no reason why any of these articles shouldn't reach GA. Background sections could be written using not only those sources already listed at AfD but those which discuss the series as a whole or which interview the author - I have seen quotes of her explaining the choice of titles, for example. (I think we can all guess that "It's Not Easy Being Mean" is a reference to "It's Not Easy Being Green", but having a source say that that's true means it's not OR.) So, yes, I do think the individual articles could be improved to that level - and having individual articles does not prevent us from improving the series article and taking that to GA or FA too. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We just had an AfD which did not result in a merge. Stop it already. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users besides AnmaFinotera suggested a merge in the AfD. The closing admin's comment said "If people wish to merge, they can discuss the matter further at the article talk page." I think it's a legitimate question to raise, even if I'm on the side of keeping the articles. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF and actually read the AfD close, which Kitty was nice enough to quote for you. So you stop it already. Just because you're a fan does not mean you can stop all discussion about these novels that you disagree with. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support a merge; there's not much to say about the individual volumes, whereas as a group they make an article of a suitable length. Most reactions are to the series, not to the distinctive qualities of any individual installment. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge too, that would address the notability concerns where much of it is derived from press surrounding the series rather than any single installment. Huge plot synopses are not necessary for each book, this is an encyclopedia not readers digest. Mfield (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mfield, you didn't participate in the original AfD so I don't know if you read the discussion. If not, may I direct your attention to the sources which I provided - reviews of individual volumes, broken down into sections by which book they cover. As these are not "press surrounding the series rather than any single installment", I believe they establish notability for each volume individually. But, yes, huge synopses are not necessary and, if the articles are not merged, should be cut down significantly. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't participate in that one, but i did start another. I have looked at your sources further. Sure there is press coverage of each book, but nothing really more than reviews (that is to say nothing to expand article text beyond listing the reviews as links. And after all a series and unless any one of the books has garnered particular attention or controversy that stands it apart from the others then I feel they are best treated as a whole, especially as once they synopses are appropriately shortened, none of the individual articles would be more than a stub unless they are expanded on from other angles. Mfield (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which they can and should be. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those reviews contains some kind of critical commentary, which can be used for a reception section. I have edited the Best Friends for Never article to show what kind of changes could be made to the rest of the set. The plot summary is shorter but it's not a stub - I've added both a reception section and a background section, expanding on the article from other angles, as you suggested. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I think such a single series article could be well crafted and easily be taken to GA or even FA, but could individual ones?"

I think that's a valid point. It doesn't hold GA status, but Private contains the kind of changes proposed here, and currently has a B rating. I support the proposition. --James26 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way you've phrased your reply means that it isn't clear but I'm going to assume that the proposition you support is merging the articles rather than taking the individual ones to GA... In any case, even though Private covers a whole series, it contains fewer sources than this new version of the Best Friends for Never article, which only covers a single volume! I think that, in the case of this series at least, it would be possible to create not only a well-sourced and well-written series article, but also well-sourced and well-written articles on each book that go into more detail. And, if we can go into more detail, why shouldn't we? -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, the background information is generic and applies to the entire series, not that book at all. The character section also applies to the entire series. Except for the plot, only the reception section is well-sourced, well-written, and actually applicable to that single book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

". . .it contains fewer sources than this new version of the Best Friends for Never article, which only covers a single volume!"

Yes, just slightly, though some of that (specifically sources 10 - 14) is only made possible by tracing several placements on the New York Times list. An article like Private is only behind in this case because it simply accounts for peak placement with each volume. If it adopted the former strategy, then there would naturally be more sources.

In any case, I do have to commend the assembled batch of critical sources provided within Best Friends for Never. I imagine that having several articles like that combined into one could be something extraordinary. Therefore, I still support the proposition of merging. --James26 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even discounting the "extra" NYT sources, I would still expect there to be at least two or three times as many sources out there covering a seven-nearly-eight book series... If that number of sources doesn't exist for Private, then maybe it's not such a good idea for us to be making comparisons. :/

I think combining all of the articles into one, if done to the depth of the current version of Best Friends for Never (which I don't feel is an unreasonable depth), would actually result in an overlong article. As an experiment, I opened up the edit page for Best Friends for Never and copied and pasted the text so that there were seven copies of it, then pasted in the text from the characters page - even once I'd removed the duplicated "background" and "characters" sections, as well as the in-text citations, the page came out at over 60kb. (And that doesn't even account for additions to the characters or receptions sections that could be made with whole-series references that I've got but haven't started using yet!) According to WP:SIZE, 60kb is the point at which an article "probably should be divided". I don't much see the point in merging something only to create an article that before we've even really begun to expand on (as we would have to, to take it to GA/FA) we should already consider unmerging...

I think it would be better to have a main series article with properly developed "background" and "development" sections, a "reception" section covering responses to the series (probably two-to-three times as long as the one in BFFN, rather than eight times as long), and then WP:SUMMARYSTYLE sections on "characters" (one short paragraph on each of the five main girls and a link to a cleaned-up and expanded-with-shiny-sources List of The Clique series characters) and "plot summaries" (one short paragraph on each book with a link to its article). And then each novel's article would contain specialised WP:SUMMARYSTYLE "background" and "characters" sections, a slightly expanded plot summary like the one in BFFN, and a "reception" section specific to that book.

While the "background" and "characters" sections are somewhat generic, if I was adding those to the other novels' articles I wouldn't simply copy and paste them; they are specific to that book. "Background" sections of later books would require small additions about the volumes that came before them (in order to provide a background for that novel rather than for the series; hence the mentions of The Clique). Also, believe it or not, the characters do seem to undergo some - gasp - character development, so I would tweak that section too. Again comparing it to Halo: Contact Harvest (one novel in a multimedia franchise that includes eight books) I don't feel this is an unreasonable strategy. If they do nothing else, those sections allow Best Friends for Never to be read entirely independently of any other articles on the series. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character section wouldn't be any different from what's in the main novel article now, as there is a whole List of The Clique series characters for the details and development et all. Nor would the background information simply grow just because we combined them, unless you have found paragraphs upon paragraphs talking about each specific novel, not just the series as a whole with a new line talking about novel X being released on Y. I've yet to see any sign that any of the individual articles can be better than a single article. As for it possibly being 60k, I don't see that as an issue. There are many FAs of that size or larger. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the "background" and "characters" sections that would exist in each novel's separate article, if we decide to keep them. In an article on the series, the "background" section would only be covering the background of the series - i.e. what happened before it was begun. And I know it wouldn't simply grow because we combined them - as I said, when I measured the length, I removed the duplicates of that section created by copying and pasting. That section would remain roughly the same size - although I would siphon some of the content off to create a new "writing/development" section and expand that with some stuff from other sources.

I've yet to see any sign that having one good article on the series is preferable to having one good article on the series and one good article on each book; I don't see how one article would be better than a group of articles together.

Indeed there are FAs longer than that. But FAs only have to be as long as required to cover their subject comprehensively; if a subject is very long and complex, the article may be long simply because has to contain the summaries of many subtopics and it cannot therefore be avoided. But if it can be avoided, I think it should. And we could comprehensively cover the series as a whole in less than 60k... (And then comprehensively cover each novel in more detail - without worrying about any kind of size issues or reader fatigue. And as they're all notable, why not?) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

". . .I would still expect there to be at least two or three times as many sources out there covering a seven-nearly-eight book series... If that number of sources doesn't exist for Private, then maybe it's not such a good idea for us to be making comparisons. :/"

? ... Your tone is increasingly defensive here. If I said something to offend you, my apologies. My original point was that an article with a B rating could possibly be helpful in at least one regard to articles that are currently rated Stub class -- possibly in one of the respects mentioned here. It wasn't intended as an insult. And in regard to sources, the Private article has fewer than what you apparently expect because the series itself isn't as big as certain others. Obviously, that doesn't mean that an article about such a series can't be among the better-rated ones. I still think that AnmaFinotera's suggestions contain valid points. With that said, I'll simply await the outcome of this proposal. --James26 (talk)23:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you haven't offended me. Sorry, I didn't intend to sound defensive at all. I said it's not a good idea for us to be making comparisons - meaning myself included - and I did so simply because I suspect that, firstly, The Clique is more popular than Private (and therefore has had more written about it, which means that Wikipedia can say more about it) and secondly because I realised that my expectations about sources for anything may not be realistic or helpful. It was wasn't meant to be a "please shut up now", but more an "I think I should shut up now". If you see what I mean.

I don't mean to suggest that Private can't achieve a higher rating; I fully believe it can. It probably does need a couple more sources to bulk up a section or two, but I think mainly if you condense the characters and settings stuff a bit then that'll immediately bump it up a notch. But I think because of the number of sources there are for The Clique it would be possible for us to not only have a well-done series article, as we could for Private, but also well-done individual articles with more detail in (which may not be appropriate for Private unless it turns out to have similar numbers of sources hiding in the dark recesses of the internet). -- KittyRainbow (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. See what happens when I misinterpret things? :) Sorry, didn't mean for the discussion to sway towards Private. Thanks for your advice, though. And as The Clique does indeed have more sources, then I can see where you're coming from in your assertion that there could be well-done individual articles. I just think it's also clear where the other side is coming from, because up until this point, it's seemed like no one has had much interest in taking those articles beyond Stub class. It'll be great if that does indeed change. -- James26 (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, no worries. :) Anyway, it's alerted me to another YA series article! So it can't be that bad.

Indeed, not much has happened with The Clique's articles so far. But I didn't even know they were here until the AfD, and I'd gladly expand them and clean them up. I could quite easily bring them all up to Best Friends for Never's standard - and that just for a start. I do think they could all be taken to GA, and I'm prepared to have a crack at that, if I'm given the chance... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened on any of the other articles since the 15th and the discussion seems to have died down some. So far, the consensus seems to be to merge these articles into one single cohesive series article, with the first novel of the series containing to have a stand alone article. Ed Wood, however, continues edit warring over having a non-article in the template, and I suspect will disagree that there is consensus here. So, should we do a 30 to evaluate the results of the discussion to ensure that the final result is neutrally determined? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count 4 in favor and 2 opposed. That's no consensus, especially given that many of the reasons are addressed. Let it go. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is consensus and you are the one who needs to seriously find some neutrality here. Yeah, you obviously don't want it merged but you don't have the final say, nor is this a democracy. I have requested a third opinion as to whether the above discussion shows consensus or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a majority (just) but I feel that I have, as Ed Wood's Wig says, addressed many of the concerns that were put forward, and as consensus is formed from discussion rather than pure voting, I too would appreciate if we could have an outside party weigh in on the issue. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You feel you have addressed the issues, but none of the editors who said merge have agreed that they were. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened on the other articles in the past eight days because, firstly, I took the break in the discussion as an opportunity to catch up on other things that needed my attention, and secondly, when making complicated edits to a page I tend to work up the text in Notepad first, so anything I have done in that time is not yet visible to the world. (Also, the discussion has mostly only died down because you and other users have taken a break from it; if you notice, I wrote the last message in each of the threads.)

I have to say, I find it somewhat counterintuitive that The Clique would continue to have an article, and yet the other books in the series not. Most of the arguments put forward in favour of merging have not been about notability (The Clique, it seems, was determined to definitely be notable because of it being an ALA pick, and therefore garnered a straight keep), but about the focus of the sources and therefore the focus of the article (although, as there are many sources that do focus on the books individually, I'm not convinced by this argument). And if The Clique is suitable for a separate article, why aren't the others? -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing because there was nothing for me to do. Arguing over the same points again and again is pointless. If the consensus was merge, I'd have done all that work, but otherwise, what is there to do? Copy/paste the "production" info over to all the other articles and to this one? Copy the reception info here as well?

For the Clique, I didn't include it in the original merge tag because this merge discussion started from the other group AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who hasn't read these books but has been involved in the AfD(s) involved, I think these books listing as best sellers make for a pretty easy argument to keep the individual book articles. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3O opinion

Hi, I am delisting this from WP:3 as it involves more than two editors and so is inappropriate. I'd suggest listing it at WP:MEDCAB instead (I'm a member of MEDCAB and would be willing to take it on if it's listed there). In the mean time, I have only one comment: How is this series different to The Hardy Boys? Thanks fr33k man ^{t - c} 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of if there is consensus is only between two editors, hence my thinking 3O would be okay. Will try asking at the novel project before going to medcab. I think that would be the next step if not 3O.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, (I do MEDCAB also, so I'll just go for it here) :-).

My view is that consensus only exists unless it is challenged. That said, however, the result of the consensus of the AfD seems to me to be keep rather than the merge that has been proposed here (the admin said the same thing and said to discuss it here which has been done). That having been said the articles should be kept unless a new, unchallenged, consensus is to merge. This has almost been met, but not quite. The figure 6 to 2 makes me quite uncomfortable because wikipedia is not a vote, nor is it a democracy (Arguments form consensus not numbers). Since it is going to take work to either merge or keep and expand, I'd suggest that the parties involved copy the articles to their userspace and work on both a merge and an expansion of the book's individual articles. At that time, the community here can be forwarded to review the proposed new pages and hold a discussion then on which is the best option for going forward with. It seems to me that this article should be somewhat like The Hardy Boys and somewhat like Private (novel series). It's more like Private than the Hardy Boys however and the author would need a lot more books, a lot more sales and a lot more personal notability prior to it meeting the Hardy Boys for fame.

What do people think? :-) fr33k man ^{t - c} 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Us creating two different userspace versions and then having the merits of them compared sounds like a good idea to me. Of course, it'd take us a while to get them ready, so I don't know when this comparing should take place... But I think it would be something good to be getting on with for the present. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, though I disagree. If consensus only exists unless its challenged, various projects would never have gotten consensus to merge anything, as someone almost always disagrees while the discussion is on-going. We have had many character to list merges go through despite a disagreement from one or more involved parties. If consensus can never be reached as long as one person disagrees, it seems there is no point at all in discussing and would make doing anything a waste of time. :( That seems to be more a requirement for unanimous agreement rather than consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees. I'd absolutely agree that in this case consensus was 100% for merge if the descenting viewpoint was simply, keep, keep, keep, but it's not; an editor has offered to expand the subpages and I think the community should allow them to try. It's a totally different event if the other side (I hate that word it's not right) offered nothing, but that's not the case. Both sides have very valid arguments and I think it makes sense to see what people come up with rather than just the community imposing a consensus. Regarding consensus itself, I think that the logical expansion of your argument "If consensus only exists unless its challenged, various projects would never have gotten consensus to merge anything, as someone almost always disagrees while the discussion is on-going." implies that a single editor's viewpoint is less valid than a group, simply based on numbers. One person can often be right, where the group is wrong. How do we know unless we give them the chance to prove it. User:KittyRainbow seems willing to accept such as chance ... Perhaps you could take on the merge in userspace and see what people think? (btw: someone will either have to merge or expand sooner or later, so why not try now?) fr33k man ^{t - c} 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No actual need for a merge has been demonstrated, and it's clear from the work done on one of the articles that they can be expanded. I fail to see the issue here. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it different from The Hardy Boys? Well, that's a somewhat complicated question, and to answer it fairly I think I would have to cover all the variables:
1) The Hardy Boys is more popular and has displayed more longevity.
2) The Hardy Boys has a larger number of volumes.
3) Many of the sources for the original Hardy Boys books, at least, will not be on the Internet.

The first point is, obviously, as a direct comparison more of an argument in favour of merging; however the second and third points, I think, are arguments in favour of keeping these articles separate. The Hardy Boys has more volumes (58 of them in the original series!) and therefore each one has a smaller share of the series' notability — and yet they all have separate articles. The sources for The Hardy Boys are also more difficult to get hold of, and currently many of the volumes' articles are unsourced. But we have many sources for The Clique right here already, and some of them have already been put into the articles.

So, I don't think this series is that different from The Hardy Boys — or, I don't think it deserves to be treated that differently — although perhaps one major difference between The Hardy Boys and The Clique is that The Hardy Boys does not appear to be currently undergoing major revision, while The Clique has an editor prepared to do that right here... -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to compare notability as I think that when something is notable enough for Wikipedia, it's notable. However, The Hardy Boys holds a place in English language culture around the world and has done so for a long time now. I'm English and have read most of them; okay and a couple of Nancy books too :-). Many of the Hardy Boys books were also either radio serialised or put on TV. I really think that the thing to do is to make the copies and let people decide the merits contained therein. PS: Don't worry about if the references are not on-line, that's the reader's problem. If the reference is valid and it's in print, then include it. Use a {{cite book}} template; I can help you if you need it. :-) fr33k man ^{t - c} 23:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to disagree with Fr33kman's process for evaluating consensus, as I believe it goes against the purpose of the WP:3O process. When an uninvolved user takes it upon themselves to determine the consensus in a discussion, their role is much like that of an admin closing a deletion discussion: they act as a stand-in for the community at large, and by critically evaluating the arguments given, determine which side of the debate would be likely to hold out if the debate were moved to a broader forum. (If they feel that they cannot effectively gaugue how the community would act in a given situation, then they should probably refer the discussion to said broader forum.) This is done by evaluating the opinions given in the specific discussion in light of established community practices and rules, and additionally weighing any exceptional circumstances that apply to the specific situation. So yes, Fr33k is correct that a 3O provider is not meant to be a vote-counter, but they are similarly not meant to say "there's a dispute, so no consensus can possibly exist." (Also note that the comparison to the Hardy Boys is essentially an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and non-helpful here.)

As for this particular case, I see a majority opinion (merge) which matches community practice and rules (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:OUTCOMES...), dissented by a minority (keep separate) which is arguing as their exceptional circumstance that the pages can be improved. So the question to be considered is whether this exceptional circumstance would be likely to hold up as deserving an exception if the merger was placed for discussion on a broad community forum. Since we are dealing with a claim of exceptionalness, the key concerns here are the practical (rather than ideological) ones. I see two cited above that appear relevant: how best to present information to our readers, and how to waste as little time duplicating effort as possible.

On the first of these, while the argument that individual articles on each book could eventually be better than the list has some merit, there has been broad community consensus in a large number of similar cases (historical debates regarding WP:EPISODE, specifically) that have decided that the context provided by a series page is better than decontextualized plot summary, and that this is a pressing enough concern to warrant merger even when the plot summary pages have encyclopedic potential as individual articles. General practice is to conduct these as "merges without prejudice", and to freely allow the recreation of the individual articles if/when they are rewritten in an encyclopedic fashion. So that the pages can be improved is unlikely to be deemed a valid claim for exception. The only remaining question that could affect the situation is how much effort would be wasted creating the list instead of improving the individual pages, but the answer there is "effectively none": an article on The Clique as a series will have to be created at some point anyway in order to have complete coverage of the topic, so we would not be creating a page that would later be rearranged out of existence, and the content that is in the individual book pages now is for the most part going to need completely rewritten in the final versions of those articles, so we run no risk of losing useful content. As such, no claim to exceptionality has been given here that would be likely to stand up to broader scrutiny, and the merge should go forward for those individual book pages which consist only of plot summary, though with the understanding that KittyRainbow is free to create them if she can find enough individualized information to support a separate high-quality article. --erachima talk 03:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, When did I say the words "there's a dispute, so no consensus can possibly exist"? Also, this is not a 3O process, there are more than 2 editors involved in the whole discussion. That is why I said "I am delisting this from WP:3 as it involves more than two editors and so is inappropriate". So 3O guidelines don't apply. I'd also recommend hanging around AfD for a while and you'll notice that admins almost always ignore the numbers when determining consensus. Indeed they are instructed to ignore simple votes that have no arguments backing them; "delete/keep as per nom" being the most often ignored vote. fr33k man ^{t - c} 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "consensus only exists unless it is challenged", which is not the case. Consensus certainly exists where it is unchallenged, but the existence of dissenting views does not mean there can be no consensus. And I am well aware of how AfD works, as I outlined above: the administrator's job is to weigh the arguments given, the relevant policies and guidelines, and their knowledge of common practice to determine the outcome. --erachima talk 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is similar to erachima (merge without prejudice), but I'd like to point out that when people volunteer for article improvement to avoid a merger, please give them a month or two (not just a week) and regularly check on the progress. If there is no progress, then it is time to merge and quality wins; if there is progress, quality has already won. Per KittyRainbow's dedicated work on Best Friends for Never, the articles should be given more time than in usual merge debates. I say this because a sensible approach may result in better articles here, and the bulldozer approach should be reserved for the true stubborn and incorrigible fanboy strongholds. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I have no interest what happens to this article as I'm not interested in the subject,. However, I'd merely repeat, it is going to take actual work to merge, and it is going to take actual work to keep. I don't know if anyone has offered to merge (someone will have to, or they'll just be kept) but someone has offered to try and expand the sub-pages and the main article. To not offer them the chance (either the merge person or the keep person) simply because there is a consensus seems unreasonable. It's not like anyone's going to die if it's kept or merged. There's no time limit, is there? fr33k man ^{t - c} 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did say I'd do the merge, but I'm not going to expend the effort if it will just get reverted or there is no consensus for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, nor should you! That's why it's a proposal that Rainbow off-line the expansion. Leave the topic as it is for now, give Rainbow say, 10 - 14 days to come up with something. Then, if people like what Rainbow's done, it can be implemented, if not the merge goes ahead and I'm sure all will be cool with that. Is there a deadline here? Can't we have a compromise? fr33k man ^{t - c} 17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One article was already done. It was still found to be better for merge above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Look, there is a consensus to merge, fine. But an editor is asking for a chance to show that they can do better with the whole series. I have no problems with a merge (it probably is the right thing to do), but you need to realize that nothing is set in concrete in Wikipedia and Rainbow may well userfy the articles, improve them and seek new consensus. It should be noted, however, that Rainbow would have to seek opinion prior to just replacing the series of articles or else undoing the merge; to not would be a violation of community policy. I still think it makes sense to give it a couple of weeks and see what Rainbow comes up with. If it turns out the community doesn't want Rainbow's versions then only their efforts and a little time has been lost, and good-will has been shown and no complaint could then succeed. If, however, the community likes what Rainbow comes up with, then it was the right decision. Like I've said, no one is going to explode in flames if this waits another two weeks (I've worked on disputes on wikis that have actively gone on almost a whole year! Check WP:MEDCAB for some old open cases that are still going on.) What's the rush? fr33k man ^{t - c} 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublished books/edit war

I have just filed a request for page protection to prevent editing of this page until proper discussion and consensus can be reached about whether these books merit inclusion or not. A consensus needs to be reached here and then further addition/deletion in conflict with that consensus can be considered vandalism. Right now there is a childish tit for tat edit war going on that always stays just short of breaching 3RR. Mfield (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was already reached on the template page and in the AfD that deleted the article for that book (and salted in in several name versions). Ed tried to get the AfD overturned in DRV and it was UPHELD. The book isn't even written, much less guaranteed for publication. It should not be listed here until it is actually done and verified it will be released. Ed has already been warned to please stop this, but keeps doing it, so yes, it keeps getting removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but then that discussion and consensus should be detailed or linked from here where it is directly relevant and people would expect to find it. If there exists a visible consensus then the repeated addition should definitely be considered vandalism and offending editors should be warned and blocked accordingly. This constant addition/deletion is annoying and fruitless. Mfield (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to my response to the page. And I agree on the constant addition/deletion... *sigh* Meanwhile, started a discussion below about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the book is written AND guaranteed. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. And no, the Amazon listing is NOT proof that it has been written or is guaranteed. It would not be the first, nor the last time, a bookseller was given a solicitation before the book was done, that is later canceled. The Google link you posted in the DRV doesn't prove anything either. The one report from February says she "will start it" not that "she has finished it." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Amazon link is proof for a book like this. There's also [www.hachettebookgroupusa.com/kids_books_9780316006811.htm] and Publisher's Weekly from this year. We're not talking some little known series. Why deny reality? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Amazon has listings for books that have since been canceled by the publishers. Happens all the time. And, again, you have provided no actual proof that the book is written. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to ignore two other sources, that's no longer my problem. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I Loathe You

Per a request from the admin who locked the page, I'm starting this topic so that we can reach consensus here regarding the addition of P.S. I Loathe You to the list of books in the series. For background and my view. The article for this book was deleted via AfD on 20 February 2008. Immediately after deletion, it was twice and CSDed both times before being salted. It has also been deleted and CSDed twice under the name P.S I Loathe You before salting.

On September 9, Ed Wood's Wig sent the article to deletion review, but the deletion was upheld as per WP:BK#Not yet published books, WP:CRYSTAL, and the lack of a truly verifiable publication date or that its even been written. On Template talk:Clique#Edit request, after similar edit warring over the link there also got the template locked, discussion over the link resulted in a consensus that it was far too soon to have the title (with or without a link) included in the template for the same reasons.

As the issue is all related, I feel the consensus from the AfD, DR, and the discussion on the template talk should all apply here and a link or mention of P.S. I Loathe You should also be left out until there actually is real evidence the book has been written and is being released in a relatively short time frame (not "maybe" in 5-6 months from now). As of now, Liss Harrison's own book list does NOT list this book[1] nor can I find any mention of it anywhere else on the site. That's a pretty clear sign to me that it doesn't need to be here either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is absolutely happening. Want to keep a redlink off? fine, but the purposes of accuracy need to trump whatever else is happening. Check the AfD, check the DRV, check the diffs in this page as for the announcements. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, prove it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ed, but you can't create an article based on your assertion that the subject of said article will exist at some point in the near future. If you provide exact links, we can look at them; however, as it is now, the article stays the same. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 18:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm going to unprotect the article now; please don't edit war. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nothing of the sort. I'll also note your lack of response to my original reply to you. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep track of every reply I get over dozens of pages. I'll respond now, though. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are cerainly a LOT of hits from googling it. Aside from blog entries, there's hits from various book sellers as well as a youtube spoiler. I cannot find the Publishers Weekly cite, that would certainly sure it up beyond its current state. I think it's very safe to say that the book merits mention as something that is discussed at such length, even if it is not a confirmed published book. Maybe something along the lines of 'the next book in the series, which early reports suggest is to be titled P.S. I Loathe You, is due to be published in xxx 09.' with all the relevant in line citations to amazon etc. in place. Is that not an acceptable compromise? Mfield (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create an article based on that. It could be included in this article, but this main issue was this redlink Ed kept throwing in, apparently. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 20:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of creating an article all based on this, is a question of this as yet unpublished book, which, since it is the subject of significant blog coverage, - including the author's own blog - and is listed on multiple booksellers sites, at least merits mention, although not being listed in directly in the series. This is the bones of the prior dispute between the other editors - whether the unpublished book should even be mentioned or not. I certainly agree with User:AnmaFinotera that the title should not be redlinked, certainly not without a confirmed release date. Mfield (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even when I didn't redlink it, you went after me. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me if this message makes no sense. I have the flu, I'm currently having trouble stringing words together, everything is a bit floaty. The book is written. It will be out next year. I think a sentence like "Harrison has finished writing the next book in the series, titled P.S. I Loathe You" is fine. Title should not be linked: redlinks are to encourage people to make the page. I said no link or mention in navbox as it is a navbox, it is for navigating, no point having something you cannot navigate to. But one sentence + cite in the article is good. That's all I wanted to say, I'm off now. I will be back later about the other stuff. Sorry about the delay. If that is too late, I understand. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Alloy Entertainment’s 2008 Frankfurt Foreign Rights Guide says P.S. I Loathe You is scheduled for release in February 2009, gives a summary for it, and also says that "Little, Brown signed up books Nos. 9–12". (And that "the book has been translated into 16 languages"—should this be mentioned in either this article or that of the first book?) --Kletta (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect a change, consensus isn't what's governing these pages. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Hachett has now also put the book on its website, the book has been added to list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book was on the website months ago. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Clique (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on The Clique (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]