Talk:Best Word Book Ever

Advertising?

You might be a bit more convincing if you actually bothered to CITE your articles, like everyone else does. External links don't really count much. Pharmboy (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason it was deleted last time was that it was considered Advertising. I discussed this with the person who deleted it and he told me which changes I needed to make. I have made them in the new version. I am sorry if the references are not to your expectations, I am quite new here and I don't know exactly what you mean by "cite" in this context. It seems to me that lots of articles look much like mine with references that are much the same (including the other two pages I have created) I honestly don't know what you expect here.

Your words "bothered to" seem very hostile to me and not the attitude I usually expect here. I have spent hours trying to make this right and I am quite prepared to spend more on it, but please don't bite me, I don't mean to be lazy. I have to go to bed now, I have work tomorrow, but I will do it better if you just explain what you want me to do.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed to a PROD, which means it won't be speedy deleted, but it will autodeleted in 5 days if the problem isn't fixed. The main problem is that the article is a recreation of an article that was previously deleted. Normally, that is a no-no. I am trying to give some benefit of the doubt here, and give you a couple days to put inline citations in the article to back up the claims of notability. Please leave the prod tags there until the problem is fixed, which gives you plenty of time to fix it. If they are removed without fixing the problem, then I will go back to speedy or AFD for deletion. If you have questions, just ask. The problem is: there are no citations inline, as in <ref>http://www.example.com</ref> types of links AFTER a particular fact, and no References section. I will add the references section, but you need to add citations to 'prove' the facts in the article, just like other articles. Yes, this is a particularly sore spot for me because the article was already legitimately deleted before and recreating it without reading up on citations first means I am spending time here, when you should have read up on how to properly cite an article before creating it. So pardon me if I am a bit short (it is normal for me), my 'bothered' comment may be rude, but it is correct. I will try to help some on this. Pharmboy (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm on it!

Thank you for your time and patience. If I understand you correctly, I use basically the same information but in a different format, inserting the links in the text. Sorry I didn't do that sooner but I didn't realise it was essential to do it that way. Wiki pages can contain all kinds of things which are not essential. I realise now that a page about a book, where people might question its notability etc, is very different to a little stub about a chemical. I don't have much time at the moment, but I started to read up on citations. Jeez its complicated, there are just too many options and its all jargon to me! I will work on it sometime in the next few days. Best Wishes and Happy New Year!

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP: I agree that the article needs to be sourced. But perhaps instead of Delete, a tag of ((unsourced|date=December 2007)) would have been appropriate. (I substituted paragraph symbols for the actual symbols to avoid labeling this discussion as unsourced). As a quick online check and my own memory reveal, this is and was a very popular book (admission of bias: childhood memories). I believe it deserves its own article; it just needs some citations. I am not even close to being an expert on Wikipedia procedures, but IceDragon64 if you'd like an assistant on this article I'd be happy to help. Wakedream (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements requested

1. Book infobox Done Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Pictures of BWBE- British Front Cover, modern front cover
3. List of ISBN's 'Done (with help from Stwalkerster) Wakedream (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Improved References:

   more authoritative references on sales figures.

   I heard somewhere that Oprah Winfrey recomended this book?

   Is Richard Scarry the top children's writer in the world?

   What are CURRENT total sales figures for BWBE?

   What other languages has it been translated into- (with references)

5. Has BWBE been made into any other medium?
6. Can we get any quotations of what RS said about the book, or his son, or anyone else? (with references)

• is it possible to have too many citations? As I understand it we only need citations where the statements are likely to be controversial- I hardly think that RS's painting method qualifies. However, if anyone cares to find the bit in one of the links I gave, then I wouldn't be against it.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1. More/Better Categories Done--added two categories. Add more? Wakedream (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say we needed any more, tho I wouldn't be against more if someone wanted to.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Connect with other wikis- Is there a page anywhere else for the other languages?

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some ISBNs and the equivalent, and another reference, plus several other changes. I'll look at more of this later. Anybody else want to play? Wakedream (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

His books have sold 100 million copies and been translated into 30 languages--I added this and a source to the Richard Scarry article. Don't know the numbers for BWBE. Wakedream (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping to photo the front cover of the British 1st edition- when I get a camera, figure out how to use it etc! which will be sufficient evidence of the British changes. I have added to the list of possible improvements, please add to the list anything you think would be appropriate that you are not able to do yourself at this time.

Thanks to Stwalkster and Wakedream for joining in.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Book ref?

Presumably the book ref should not be in links, but I didn't actually refer to it- Where should it go?

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if it's used it would be most appropriate in the Richard Scarry article. As you said, it's not a link and isn't referenced here, so I regretfully removed it. If it is used in a way that would help this article, feel free to add it back in.Wakedream (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed delete tag

I read over IceDragon64's improvements to the article, especially the addition of sources, and added another source. I also added more general info including bits about other editions, reworded sentences, redid the reference tags (they were fine, but the now current ones gives more detail), etc. Pharmboy specified the parameters under which 'e felt the delete tag could be removed. I believe that, with the combined changes, the article meets the criteria. If not, please forgive me. I did add a few Fact/citation needed tags for elements I think should be sourced. The article can still use some improvement, but I think it's a keeper. Wakedream (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Low Importance?

Are you guys sure about this? This is the seminal work of one of the most successful children's picture book authors ever. This is the work that provided the basis for all the rest of Richard Scarry's later work. It has sold millions of copies and been translated and revised for decades. This dismissive categorising makes me feel that we need more of the facts/stats that show just how major this book is.

IceDragon64 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I still stand by this. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of the ranking is based on not only the subject matter, but also the general state of the Wiki page. If you want to raise the importance - improve the page. So don't just complain - do something about it. Considering its also been rated as a stub, you have alot of work ahead of you. Ckruschke (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

From where do you gain the idea that Importance is based on the state of the page? According to the Criteria of Importance, the state of the page has nothing to with it.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Best Word Book Ever. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102022620/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rscarry.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rscarry.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780873588737

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)