Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography

Wrong Year of moving to Baker Street here or on main article

In the main article Sexton_Blake#Blake's_evolution, Blake moves to Baker Street in 1905: "In 1904 he acquires a sidekick, a young boy named Tinker. The following year he moved to Baker Street."

Here, the year is 1904: in "The Union Jack (2nd Series)" (62 | The Mystery of Hilton Royal | Arnold Davis (William M. Graydon)) is stated: "Sexton Blake has moved to Baker Street." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F13:7780:3C17:E372:37DF:546F (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting question

@Nml25: Can you tell what the "Plus: A.P." entries mean, which mess up the formatting in e.g. the 1918 section? If they don't have a specific meaning I would remove them. Thanks! Daranios (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.P. = Amalgamated Press Nml25 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nml25: Thanks, that's what I'd already gathered. My question was related to the additional lines reading "Plus: A.P.", e.g if you look in that section just below "The Case of the Hidden Fortune". They are caused by columns that don't fit into the regular scheme. Do they have any actual meaning? If yes, they probably should be formatted differently. If not they should be removed. Daranios (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I looked the column in question, it is a formatting mistake. The problem occurs in magazine issues when there are more than one story in the issue.
The columns in 1909 onward need to be reformatted, I didn't get around to it during the debate becuase of time. Nml25 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on 1909-1913. I think the table is easier to read with individual magazine titles. Please don't combine them. Series can be combined. See Dreadnought issues 1913. Open to reading your thoughts Nml25 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article

Hello Abbasulu and others! I assume the creation of the bibliography articles per century is meant to help solving the problem of the long size of the article? I am a bit skeptical if this is really the best way to go, because the 19th and 21st century bibliographies are comparatively short. So the 20th century article is shorter by such a small amount (compare Special:LongPages) that in my view this does not outweigh the disadavantage of having to look through three different articles. I still think shortening the code by combining identical entries in consecutive lines (like here) and similar means can be more effective. Thoughts? Daranios (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that splitting out the 20th century section has little utility. Clearly this attempt at splitting is still ongoing and has not yet concluded. Shortening the code is a better strategy, but this article would still need to be split in the middle of the 20th century at least, or be completely rewritten. Given the state of the article, I would suggest that this be moved into draft space to be worked on more appropriately. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would not like for the article to be moved to draft space: It fits the main purpose of a topical bibliography just fine. Only a small part needs additional citations, as much can be verified by the primary sources. And at a time where videos embedded in webpages are common, length presumably is only be a problem for a small percentage of users. So I think it's better if it is available in mainspace while we hope for improvement of those editorial problems. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The length is one issue, regardless of technical size. The bigger issue is the formatting, lack of citations and repetitiveness of the content. I don't think anyone can say that the article in its current form is adequate for main-space, and attempts to improve the article while in main-space have stalled considerably. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't want to redo the deletion discussion. So about the length, can we agree that it would make sense not to split by century, but rather a) shorten the shortening the code by combining identical entries in consecutive lines (like as suggested, b) combining serials if necessary, and c) splitting "in the middle of the 20th century at least" if still necessary, in that order?
Otherwise in my view it's a topical bibliography just like Bibliography of the Eureka Rebellion or Bibliography of works on The Simpsons. So I am not sure the formatting has to be changed. And, well, there is no deadline for improvements on Wikipedia. Daranios (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that splitting by century is not a good idea. I do not know if the source code can further be reduced by combining values, but I support attempts to do that. Splitting the article somewhere in the middle of the 20th century is clearly the best way to split the article. There is no need for these improvements to be made in any particular order. This article is not a topical bibliography at all, and not a bibliography at all. This article is a list article, being a list of Sexton Blake literature. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: "I do not know if the source code can further be reduced by combining values": I think indeed a lot could be achieved if someone were to continue with steps like these. "There is no need for these improvements to be made in any particular order.": Fair enough. "This article is a list article": Hmm, so should it be renamed to something List of Sexton Blake literature to conform (more or less) to other Lists of book series we have here on Wikipedia? But if I understand correctly, the term bibliography would still be correct, too, as our list here conforms to the definition of "a systematic list of books and other works such as journal articles". Daranios (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be easier to edit, and save much space, if the tables were merged. If this was a list of books then it would easily be called List of Sexton Blake books, but is complicated by the different forms of literature. I would agree with List of Sexton Blake literature, or List of Sexton Blake publications. A bibliography usually describes a collection of works by unrelated authors on a particular academic topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Personally I would have no objection against combining tables per se, but I think the publication year should be included. And I am not sure how to best do that when combining tables while still saving space. Pinging @Nml25:, who I think has advocated against such a combination, for their opinion. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would also add the publication year. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thansk for continuing attempts to mreview and improve the Blake bibliography.
If one were to break up the Sexton Blake page by eras, it would be best to break it up in the following manner:
1893-1911: The Victorian and Edwardian Era
1912-1945: The Age of the Master Criminals (The Golden Age)
1946-1963: On the Homefront
1964 to present: Revival and Reprints (or something similar. Pretty much everything after 1978 is a reprint.) Nml25 (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nml25: Sounds good, but is a breakup into these eras also done in some secondary source? Or even better, do you know any secondary sources discussing these eras? That would be very helpful. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some latitude with the dates. Unfortunately the article dosn't list it's sources. From the Encyclopedia of Pulp Heroes: Sexton Blake is a Great Detective. Like many other long-running dime novel and story paper characters, including Nick Carter (I), Dixon Hawke, and Nelson Lee, Sexton Blake went through several distinct phases in his fictional career. For the first five years of his career Blake was teamed with a French detective, Jules Gervaise, and was modeled on 19th century detective characters. For the next fifteen years, Blake was primarily influenced by Sherlock Holmes. In the twenty-six years between 1919 and 1945, what is commonly seen as Blake’s Golden Age, Blake became a less misanthropic, less manic-depressive, and more action-oriented version of Holmes. From 1945 to 1955 Blake became a hard-bitten private detective, and from 1955 to 1968, the last year that stories about Blake were regularly published, Blake was influenced by James Bond. I'd argue that 1912 or 1913 was the start of the Golden Age, that's when the super villains began to appear and set the stage for much that followed. Nml25 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nml25: That's pretty great already in my view. As is discussed further down, we must not do WP:Original research. That means, as long as there is no other secondary source, we should not deviate from those dates given in the source found. Even if your possibly superior knowledge of the topic does not quite agree with the dates given. Also in light of the discussion below it would be great if you could use this (and possibly other) source(s) to reference certain statements within the article. E.g. maybe the heading addition "end of an era" would fit betther to 1968 backed up by your source than 1963? Or maybe not, but then another secondary source mentioning the important end of the Sexton Blake library (if I understand correctly) would be great. Daranios (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and merged the split-off pages back in as current state of discussion. I had planned to wait a bit longer in case more opinions showed up, but events have been overturning, i.e. the articles had been redirected. Pinging @TimothyBlue: to let them know there is a discussion here. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on adding citations? otherwise the unsourced original research needs to be removed.  // Timothy :: talk  17:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of information here is the listing of publications of Sexton Blake stories. The bibliographical information plus plot summary information can be veryfied by those primary sources, can't it? So only a small amount of unreferenced information remains. Or am I missing something? Daranios (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of the redirecting. I can hold this information in a user page to preserve the content. The deletion discussion has no weight on what we do here, as there was no consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip and TimothyBlue: a) " The deletion discussion has no weight on what we do here, as there was no consensus." As there was no consensus, one should only deviate from the procedure outlined for such a result if there is a solid consensus after all, reached after some time to allow for input and alerting interested parties (i.e. those participating in the deletion discussion). In my view, the current two opinions for redirect vs. one opinion keep, is not yet such a new and different consensus. b) What are the current arguments for not having the articles, which cannot be remedied by editing? Length can be remendied to a point. As I said, I am not yet convinced about the Original research argument. Daranios (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This like all other articles require citations. Citations should be added or the unreferenced material removed.  // Timothy :: talk  14:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifyable, not everything needs to be cited. Otherwise an enormous number of articles would need to be deleted. Which parts of the article here do you think are original research, i.e. could not be verified by either primary or secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original research and verifiability are not mutually exclusive. In this case, it is very likely that this article was constructed based on an editor's original research. They clearly used the titles of the Sexton Blake works themselves to create this article. It could theoretically be supported by reliable sources, but why haven't any sources at all been used yet? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: WP:Original research means "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Combining sources without drawing conclusions, however, is what we Wikipedians do in every article (in fact, relying on one source alone for an article is against guidelines). And primary sources are fine for plot summary (which includes: This is a Sexton Blake story; that's not a conclusion), and other obviously present information we have here, like title, author, year, etc. So all the information in those columns, which make up the main part of the information we have here, is supported by each primary source. It would make little sense to give the same information again by making it an in-line footnote reference or something like that. That's also not done in other lists like List of Oz books or List of The Simpsons books. If you still like a secondary source, there is also given (though as an external link, not a reference) the Blakiana website, which can verify a lot of the bibliographical listing. There are a few statements inbetween that information where we might still like a secondary source. But I don't see a major problem there. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no result, so there is nothing either binding or guiding us from that deletion discussion. A finding of no consensus doesn't mean the consensus was to keep the article. We do not know if the article can be improved to be adequate and it is only hypothetical to say that it could be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's set aside the question of the specific AfD closure for a moment. It's fine to boldly redirect an article if one feels that's the right thing to do. But when there is disagreement by someone else, then the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle applies. Last stage being "discuss", i.e. one needs to find consensus for the redirect. Specifically WP:NOCONSENSUS says "In discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages, a lack of consensus normally results in the content being kept." Redirect is the next thing to deletion, so no consensus in our discussion here means the article should stay until a different consensus is reached, and not that the article should be redirected until a different consensus is reached. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are avoiding answering a simple question: are you going to remove the unsourced material or add references?  // Timothy :: talk  15:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: Currently I am not planning to do much more work than what I've already done on this article, so in general, no I will do neither. Do you plan work on the article? I consider information like "1894: Halfpenny Marvel 33 - Sexton Blake's Peril! - Complete tale - Author: Hal Meredeth - Blake fights The Terrible Three." sourced. The primary source is right there, no problem with WP:Verifyability. I also have questions: Which parts do you consider original research in the Wikipedia sense and why? Also, I think "Citations should be added or the unreferenced material removed." is nowhere backed up by policy (and for good reasons). If I missed it, I would be interested to know where that's stipulated. Daranios (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." See Wikipedia:Citing sources  // Timothy :: talk  16:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the original research are the notes, comments etc.
But don't worry I wont be removing the material, but eventually someone else will.  // Timothy :: talk  16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be me. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Fair enough, but that concerns really a very small percentage of the article, doesn't it? So far I did not have the impression that anything not backed up by primary sources was in error - and I did provide secondary sources for a few small parts in that regard. So I don't feel compelled to remove those. But I have no arguments against such a removal - except that WP:ATD implies the person considering deleting material should do a search for secondary sources first. Daranios (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to primary sources here, but there clearly aren't any. What are you saying are these primary sources? The fictional works themselves are not primary sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Yes, the works of fiction themselves were what I was referring to. For a fictional character, those are the primary sources. Just compare to those closely analoguous examples from WP:Primary sources: "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment", "discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot". Daranios (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combining tables

@Onetwothreeip: Hey, I've seen you have started combining the tables by year. So thanks for your work, and I like the introduction of issue no. column. But now seeing everything in practice I have to ask again: As we still have the headings of the columns for each year - which makes sense to keep it readable - we do not actually save any length by the combination. On the other hand we loose the ability to jump to any one year from the table of contents. (Sure the table of contents has looked very long before, but if that's considered to unsightly, it could have been hidden as default setting.) So what do we want to achieve again by combining the tables by year? Daranios (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to have the table of contents navigate within a table, and there are tables of contents that are specific to tables. Combining the tables saves much space, especially if we continue with merging cells, as I have started to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Having a table of contents for sections within the table sounds like a good solution to the one problem, although I have no clue about how that works. However the solution we had for combining the tables did not save any space. It also has not impact on the effect of merging cells as long as we keep the separating year headlines within the table. To achieve that, in my view we would need to find a way to include the years in a different way, a column presumably, but without repeating the year over and over, which again would take more space. So I am not sure what's the best solution, and if the effect is worth the effort. Daranios (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Combining the tables saves space, both in article space and in source code. The relatively small addition in space was the addition of a new column, which is required for merging cells. What happened here is that I implemented the combining of the tables in the same edit as adding the new column, and the latter outweighed the former. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip and Nml25: Errm, I guess it would be good to discuss and decide the further progression here first, to avoid work getting to waste. Daranios (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nml25: I am unsure where the increase in code size between this version and this version came from. Could you perhaps elucidate that? Daranios (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daranios I split the Blake pages into four as discussed. It is the easiest solution I think. The change in formatting to smaller text and boxes makes it more difficult to read and more difficult to find information. The tables still need some final formatting and clean up in parts 2 and 3 but part 1 and part 4 are mostly complete. Nml25 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So after all that moving about, all that reformatting, all that talk about the length of the web page, resizing of tables, Onel5969, a person who was never been part of the discussion, never looked at anything, who does not seem to understand what a bibliography is, just moved three of the pages to draft space. And then he cut several years out of the victorian era bibliography page, which I have just restored. Left hand... right hand... Amazing... Nml25 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: I've made a test for combining the year 1900 and 1901 only, without adding the new column. Is that/that what you had in mind? If yes, it does not actually save any space, but rather increased code size very slightly. So either this would need to be done differently, or we would need another really good reason for combining the years into one table. I still think saving space can be done in a major way by combining cells and serials within the year-by-year format. Daranios (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Combining tables and doing nothing else would reduce space, both in terms of source code and article space. I don't see how combining those tables can increase the size in any way. Removing the table headings and the section headings would reduce space, and there is nothing being added. Also I support the splitting of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, a split is done and that should be a big step with regard to the problem of length.
@Nml25: As already discussed, it would be great to give secondary source(s) for the chosen periods and designations of periods to avoid the impression of original research. Daranios (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Not as important any more after the split, but to clarify about "Combining tables and doing nothing else would reduce space": You can see from my test from 27th of January that combining the two years of 1900 and 1901 did increase the code size by 37 bytes. In both our attempts we have preserved the headings of the columns after each year, which helps for readability, but that's why essentially no code was removed. Therefore the combining of years and doing nothing else (except adjust heading) did not reduce the code size. Daranios (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for your test, but when I did so, purely combining the tables reduced the source size. More importantly, it reduced the visual size of the article. Splitting the title column and merging one of the split columns further reduces the size. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: The point may be moot, as after the split saving space may no longer be such an important concern (and there's still a lot of opportunity to save code space by the other methods), but for the sake of completeness: "Splitting the title column and merging one of the split columns further reduces the size." That may well be, but I don't get what exacly you are thinking of. "purely combining the tables reduced the source size" - What did you different than me here? Or would you like to show by combining two years your way? That might be easiest for understanding. As for the visual reduction of size, I am not sure that's beneficial. If the years are within the table, that makes the article have less lines, but I have the impression it rather makes readability a bit worse. Daranios (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the columns had entries such as "Example 1", "Example 2", "Example 3" and so on. If this column was split, "Example" could span an entire column, and the second column would contain the number. This saves space by reducing the writing required. Likewise, merging tables together removes the need for subsequent table headings. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two tables:

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 1 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 2 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

One merged table:

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 1 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet
Example 2 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

With merged column:

First Number Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 1 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet
2 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: Ok, I get that, but that's not exactly the situation we have here. What we have is:

Two tables:
Heading: Year One

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 1 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

Heading: Year Two

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 2 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

One merged table:

Year One
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 1 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet
Year Two
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Example 2 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

We don't save anything there. We could skip the repetition of headings, making this:

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth
Year One
Example 1 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet
Year Two
Example 2 Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet

That would save a bit, but as the tables are long, the reader hardly ever would see the column headings. I think that would result in a loss of readability that is not worth the limited amount of saved space. The merging of columns beyond one year would still not be possible, as the year information is in the way. We could make the year a column instead, but then again we would need additional code for that, and we would loose the chance for a clickable table of contents for the reader to pick out a year from the top of the article. In general, to make this less theoretical, if you have specific ideas, I suggest to try them out by merging two actual years in the article, check out how it looks like/what the change in size actually is, then undo so that the change can be discussed and decided. Daranios (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, also, I personally have no objections against splitting Magazine name and issue number in two columns, and then combining magazine name fields, if that turns out to save space. However Nml25 may have another opinion on that, as they stated above "I think the table is easier to read with individual magazine titles. Please don't combine them." That's a question independant of the merging oder not merging tables from different years, though. Daranios (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, skipping the repetition of the headings, as you put it, would reduce the size of the article in both source and area. If the tables were merged without removing repetitive headings, this would still save space, as there would be less blank space on the page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: "If the tables were merged without removing repetitive headings, this would still save space, as there would be less blank space on the page." Yes, it would save a small amount of screen space, but in my view at the expense of looking more cramped/less readability, so I would not support that. I have stated my reservations on removing the headings. As the size has been significantly reduced by the split, my suggestion is to put this idea on hold and use the other means to reduce code size first. And then consider this question again in those cases where code size still seems very large. Daranios (talk)
On the contrary, merging the tables saves significant screen space. As you indicate, this discussion is moot for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging tables made it look cramped and unwelcoming.
I have looked at the Grey's Anatomy page. It is 305,107 bytes, which make it almost 10 times larger than the bibliography part 4, maore than twice as large as parts 1 and 3. Part 4 is larger coming in at just over 400,000 bytes. There is a bit of work that can be done there combining serials etc, but I have spent a lot of time on this already and am not going to spend more on it just to have it deleted. Nml25 (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify?

Note: This discussion has started at User talk:Nml25#Sexton Blake bibliography and has been copied here as relevant to the article. Daranios (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two months since the AfD ended with no consensus, but there was a clear consensus that sourcing was needed. During that time you have worked on the article, but only in expanding it with more unsourced material. Now, I've taken the time to remove all the unsourced material. Yet you keep re-adding it without proper sourcing. If you continue to do so, I'll have no other recourse but to report you at ANI. Please take a look at WP:BURDEN, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 TT me 17:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE SOURCED IT PROPERLY. The source of the Blake list is stated clearly on the page. Here's the paragraph which you obviously have not read:
The list originated in the pages of Story Paper Collectors' Digest where collectors began recording and compiling the list of Blake tales that appeared in the The Union Jack and The Sexton Blake Library. A master corpus was compiled in the mid 1960s by Len and Josie Packman and published as the Sexton Blake Catalogue.[5]
Source: http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/packman.html referenced on Wikipedia
Shall I upload a picture of the catalogue pages for you?
It lists: issue # title characters author
Due to the extreme length of the bibliography it has been divided into four eras:[6] Referenced
1893-1911: The Victorian/Edwardian Era Sexton Blake bibliography
1912-1945: The Master Criminals Era Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945
1946-1978: The Post War Era Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978
1979–present: Revivals and Republications Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present
Each entry has magazine title/issue # author and character. That is all you need.
Here's the Doc savage page on which this is based.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels
You were not part of the original discussion.
Here's a message you haven't seen
01:52, 9 December 2022‎ Liz talk contribs‎ m 712,088 bytes 0‎ Liz moved page Draft:Sexton Blake bibliography to Sexton Blake bibliography over redirect: This article has already been draftified once, doing it again is inappropriate. Please check the page history next time. undothank
You are wasting a lot of my time by making unilateral decisions that I just have to undo. So let's bring in other editors by all means.
@Daranios
@Onetwothreeip
@Liz Nml25 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios
@Onetwothreeip
@Liz Nml25 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Liz to mediate. Try not to touch anything until we hear from her. Nml25 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nml25, I do not see any consensus or support for the unsourced content, other than from yourself. I am inclined to agree that there has been more than enough time for sources to be added to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show me. What is the unsourced content. Highlight it. Nml25 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start here. What's unsourced on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sexton_Blake_bibliography_part_4:_1979-present
Exactly the same style as this page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels
Tell me. Happy to listen. Nml25 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first entry on page, for example. "Sexton Blake Wins". Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first entry includes year of publication, title, publisher, author, the list of titles in the anthology and the ISBN number for verification. It is consistent with standard bibliographic information. What is missing?
It is consistent with information provided for books on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels
Take a look at Star Trek Adventures reprints (1993–1995) on that page. Tell me how my entry is different.
There are no double standards on Wikipedia. Either both pages are published or both pages should come down. Nml25 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not the problem, it is the verification. It seems that all we have for verification is the ISBN number, but I don't see anything to verify that this is the correct ISBN number. As for the Star Trek list, the verification is probably found in the 36 references on that page. If verification is not there, then I would agree that the entry shouldn't be there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All ISBN numbers are clickable. Cick on the ISBN number. It'll take you to the ISBN page. Click find on Amazon. Alternatively:
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/sexton-blake-wins/author/adrian-jack/
"I don't see anything to verify that this is the correct ISBN number." What do you propose exactly other than the above? Nml25 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That could be used as a reference to support the verification of the list entry, but I am not aware if the source is reliable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Would it not be more beneficial to move this whole discussion over to Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography? As I had already pointed out there, with regard to WP:Verifiability, I believe the bibliographical information and plot summary is all verifiable by using the WP:Primary sources, as is outlined at that policy page. In addition, I have re-added the Blakiana website, which can verify a lot the that information as well. As far as I can tell, that one counts as a reliable case of a self-published source, as the author Mark Hodder is recognized as an established subject-matter expert e.g. by this academic source. Daranios (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Blakiana website was always there as an external link on all four pages of the bibliography. Don't know who removed it. The alternative appears to be to upload an image of every single cover for verifiability. I have temporarily uploaded an image of the Sexton Blake Catalgue to illustrate origin. The catalogue and its contents are descibed on the bibliography page.
"The bibliographical information and plot summary is all verifiable by using the WP:Primary sources, as is outlined at that policy page." Yes I agree. What I had written in the notes before followed the List of Docc Savage novels model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels Nml25 (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: The authority of Mark Hodder's work doesn't necessarily extend to a self-published source. We would need evidence that reliable sources rely on Mark Hodder's self-published work. The Sexton Blake works themselves don't count as reliable primary sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Well, at least this journal article, this PhD thesis, and this academic book use Mark Hodder's Blakiana. "The Sexton Blake works themselves don't count as reliable primary sources." Why? I'd say there's hardly a more reliable source available for publication information than a publication itself. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to support the existence of the primary source, and then that would be a secondary source. Primary sources aren't used to support the existence of themselves, they are used to support information in an article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: I think that's more or less the opposite of what WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources point 3, and especially WP:ALLPRIMARY say: "Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the copyright page inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication. Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source." Also, you say "they aren't used to..." like there is some established consensus. Where would that be set down? WP:Verifiability asks that we should be able to verify everything on Wikipedia. Let's take your very first example: "Sexton Blake Wins" at Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present#1986. If I have that book in front of me, in which way can it not verify its title? Daranios (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have it in front of you, I can't verify its title. All we need is something to verify that it is a primary source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three sources that verify the existence of Sexton Blake Wins.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3616599-sexton-blake-wins
https://www.amazon.com/Sexton-Blake-wins-Jack-ADRIAN/dp/0460024825
https://books.google.ie/books/about/Sexton_Blake_Wins.html?id=U98qAAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
How much verification do you need to prove something is reliable? What you haven't done is prove that the book entries and the ISBNs are unreliable.
Here is a list of Hercule Poirot's appearances. No citations nor references. Much less information than provided for the Blake works. How do you determine reliability of the works listed on this page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature Nml25 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia standards are inconsistent.
Here is a list of Hercule Poirot's appearances. Not a reference anywhere....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature Nml25 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support @Onel5969:'s cleanup of the article for the reasons stated.
 // Timothy :: talk  17:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TimothyBlue: Then would you care to answer the questions at the bottom? Despite everything said, mostly with regard to WP:VERIFY, I neither see a reason for a major clean-up based on that policy, nor which steps would actually need to be taken to fullfill WP:VERIFY, as the vast majority of information is already verified. Daranios (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: "If you have it in front of you, I can't verify its title." Huh, I don't get it, would you care to explain what you mean? It sounds a bit like you are saying that you can't verify this because you don't currently own that book. So I'd like to explain my position based on WP:Verifiability again: "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. [...] Its content is determined by previously published information" So in our example the Wikipedia article says: In 1986 there was book with Sexton Blake stories published, titled Sexton Blake Wins. Now if you buy/borrow/organize that book, so that you have it in front of you, then you look at the front page, you can see that the title is correct. That and reading through the book tells that its topic is Sexton Blake. Checking the page with the copyright will tell you if it was indeed published in 1986. Done. You've verified everything stated by the Wikipedia article for our example. Therefore WP:Verifiability is fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:VERIFY is not something that is debatable. You need to provide valid sources for everything in this article. And simply citing a book, without providing the other information as noted in WP:CIT does not count, as there is not enough information to pass VERIFY. I've once again (for I don't know how many times) removed the uncited material. I've warned you that re-adding uncited information violates WP:BURDEN, which is seen as disruptive editing. Please read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I really do not like taking folks to ANI, but if you continue to waste other editors' time by your refusal to follow WP policies, I'll have no choice but to do to.Onel5969 TT me 11:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onel5969: Whew, so many things to say. First, any objections to moving this whole discussion over to Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography, where it seems to me to belong contentwise? I agree that WP:VERIFY is not debatable. Now it has been repeatedly claimed that just listing the books/magazine - which are the primary sources - would not verify the publication information. But noone has yet explained why this should be the case (in the face of what the various Wikipedia guidelines say of how primary sources can be used). And I can assure that, and have tried to explain just above why this is not at all obvious. Next you are pointing to WP:CIT, which right away says "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged." Next you are pointing to WP:BURDEN. Setting aside for a moment the basis for challenging this material in the first place, that paragraph asks to "providing an inline citation". WP:Inline citation in turn states "an inline citation is generally a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. The most common methods are numbered footnotes and parenthetical citations within the text, but other forms are also used on occasion." So for those cases where we don't have footnotes using a citation template, we still have in the tables itself the relevant information to look up the primary source, which can, as WP:ALLPRIMARY says, support publication information. That surely counts as "any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it". So would you please explain why and for which details exactly you think "there is not enough information to pass VERIFY" despite all that? Lastly, it's clear that we are not in agreement of what should be done. The result of the deletion discussion was not "draftify". It was "no consensus". So in accordance with the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, we should keep the article in mainspace until there is consensus to do otherwise. And it seems to me that draftifying the article "for I don't know how many times" rather than establishing a consensus first is disruptive (see point 4. of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). As I don't think we'll easily get to an agreement, an outside opinion might all do us good here, I have no objection to getting one. I am only wondering if WP:ANI is indeed the right place for that, or if that should rather be at WP:DRN. Daranios (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I've never argued about PRIMARY. Primary sources are, at times, perfectly suitable to satisfy VERIFY. What they do not do is satisfy GNG, which is not the argument in this case. I point to WP:CIT, not to say they have to use any of the templates there, but to show what is needed in a reference to ensure it passes VERIFY. I do not care of the format of the footnote, only the information contained therein. Citing the Encyclopedia Britannica is not a valid source (I use that to contrast with the numerous times the The Sexton Blake Catalogue is cited, without including enough information. At the very least the page number the information appears on is required. I have no issue with moving the discussion to the article's talkpage. And I am not arguing for draftifying this article, simply that proper sourcing be provided. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onel5969: So we are still talking about WP:VERIFY, right? I don't think that actually answers my main question. I have argued above for one specific example why I think the verifying source is right there in the article. Where do you think I went wrong with this argumentation for this example? Or which other details do you think need verification? And on a different note, don't you think the Blakiana website verifies a large portion of the publication information in addition to the primary sources being stated? Daranios (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What is the ISBN or SBN number and the publisher of "Packman, J. & Packman L. (1966) The Sexton Blake Catalogue". I can find nothing.  // Timothy :: talk  12:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found someone about "Packman, J. & Packman L. (1966) The Sexton Blake Catalogue" - Was this self published or fan club published? [1]  // Timothy :: talk  13:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think Collectors would published a catalogue that would lead other collectors astray?
    The validity of the Packman research is cited in The Men Behind Boys Fiction
    https://archive.org/details/menbehindboysfic0000loft/page/20/mode/2up?q=packman
    The catalogue was also wrtitten up in the Weekend Telegraph
    http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/packman.html
    Another reference to the catalogue is here:
    http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/ref.html
    Sexton Blake Catalogue + Supplement. L & J Packman, 91pp. Monumental guide to Blake, pvt. publication.
    Second edition of the catalogue was published in 1993 p 19
    http://www.friardale.co.uk/Collectors%20Digest/1993-11-CollectorsDigest-v47-n563.pdf
    Why whould anyone go to that trouble if the catalogue was worthless and unreliable? Nml25 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Nml25 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: No idea myself, aside from what Nml25 found out. You are not avoiding answering the question above/summarized here, are you? Daranios (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So this is a self published work that doesn't meet WP:RS? If you're claiming otherwise, we need a publisher and an idenifier such as an ISBN or other identifier otherwise it is impossible to verify. If there is a question about this we can discuss at the RS noticeboard. // Timothy :: talk  18:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So as far as I understand the Sexton Blake Catalogue is self-published, though well-respected by collector magazines. I think it is quite good to have as it collects a lot of data in one place. It is not necessary to fullfill WP:VERIFY, though, as there are two others sources present.
@TimothyBlue and Onel5969: You have removed large swaths of information, which did not have foot-note-style references from the articles, claiming they are failing WP:VERIFY. You have so far avoided to answer the simple question why this should be the case, when both primary sources and the Blakiana page are present as sources. To discuss this further, I have restored two examples: Version a with primary sources within the table as before; version b with the primary sources as footnote-style in-line citations; version c with secondary sources as in-line citations. Would you accept any of those three versions? If so, where do you actually see the difference? Or if you want to remove all of them, why? Daranios (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Since the last version, some improvements had been made concerning sourced information on the bibliography overall. You've again removed large amounts of information based on the previous claim that things are unsourced, but neither given details what exactly you would like to see as sourcing for verfication, nor answered the question why you think things are unsourced despite the arguments to the contrary. Would you care to still discuss those questions? Daranios (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the article properly sourced. It's been explained numerous times. Onel5969 TT me 18:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: But what is properly sourced for you is unclear to me. You have stated "I do not care of the format of the footnote, only the information contained therein." and "Primary sources are, at times, perfectly suitable to satisfy VERIFY". The bibliographical information is there in the tables (though not in footnote-style) based on primary sources. So why is that not ok? Or could you make an example what would be ok? Or say if any of my versions a, b, c above might be ok for you or not and why? Daranios (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: "When multiple people's arguments haven't explained the problem, maybe the the issue is your not hearing it" - Possibly, but I firmly believe that it has been claimed multiple times that things are unreferenced, but never explained why the presence of primary sources should not count as references for the publication information. So, if I've overlooked it, please humour me and point me to the explanation. Or provide one yourself. Otherwise let's please focus on the arguments rather than my perception. Daranios (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These should be merged

The listing that all fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY can be dropped, anything useful should be merged to The Sexton Blake Library. The same should happen with the other three articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for bringing the discussion over here. I think these lists do not fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY because on the one hand bibliography lists are an established part of Wikipedia as seen at the WP:Bibliography section of the guideline, and on the other hand in my view they do not fall into any of the six categories listed at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I assume you are thinking of the first case, simple listings. The category asks us to provide context for the reader, and I believe the introductions do that as required. Additionally, the listing is not simple in that there is some commentary on so Sexton Blake stories within the tables, even if this is short as compared to the overall information. In conclusion, I do not think these lists should be merged. Daranios (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction doesn't provide any context, it is just the header of what is a listing. This is not a Bibliography section, and even those are not meant to replicate the entire listing of works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does any of this provide any real encyclopedic value that couldn't be achieved by having a link in the see also section to any of the fan sites that do complete listing of this work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: "and even those are not meant to replicate the entire listing of works": But MOS:LISTSOFWORKS says that complete lists of works are encouraged. And WP:NOTDIRECTORY asks to provide contextual information, which is meant to make an "article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible". We have a definition of Sexton Blake, a history of publications featuring the character, a history of bibliographical works on Sexton Blake publications, and some notes how the lists are organized. So maybe you can give input to what's missing to make these lists understandable for readers so that we can improve shortcomings rather than simply remove imprefect content. Daranios (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LISTSOFWORKS mentions Isaac Asimov, an author well known for publishing many works. But if you go to his article you will find it isn't a list of absolutely everything he ever published. There is a list page for that, Isaac Asimov bibliography, but you'll note it's just a list article it doesn't include unreferenced 'info' next to each entry. Even that list doesn't include each magazine weekly publication not his stories, because that would be unencyclopedic content just like these articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to fail to understand that Wikipedia aims to be the summary of all knowledge, not the sum of all knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the character Sexton Blake is not as well known as the author Isaac Asimov, but seeing that there are four bibliographies for Asimov linked at Isaac Asimov bibliography, I actually think they together do list everything he ever published. And well, Obscurity is not grounds for deletion. Daranios (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And because something exist doesn't mean that it's WP:DUE for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Ok let's look at Isaac Asimov short stories bibliography, again a simple list without extra unreferenced details. The list contains "story name / year / collect in / first published", it still doesn't contain weekly publication data about these stories many of which will have been original published in parts across multiple magazines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested: "many of which will have been original published in parts across multiple magazines": Are you sure about that? Being short stories, I would expect each to be published within one magazine. But be that as it may, it was suggested above to combine serialized stories rather than listing each part with each magazine issue. Maybe that's something we can take from here to improve the list rather then delete it?
As for critique about having extra details, isn't that inconsistent with the critique of this being too simple a list with regard to WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Sure, details should not be too much and should be referenced, but as far as they are plot summary, or appearance of significant characters, they are referenced by the primary sources as described in WP:PRIMARY point 3. Overall, I think a limited amount of notes would be beneficial to the interested reader as (in contrast to many Asimov stories) the Sexton Blake stories are covered only here rather than having their own articles. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexton_Blake_bibliography&oldid=1206263095"