Talk:Neil Gaiman bibliography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Does anyone have the time to at least seperate the Prose works out into Fiction and Non-Fiction? That we seem a good starting point...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.236.33 (talk)

Amount of Information?[edit]

I don't think there should be that much information on his books in this article. It should simply be an organized list of his works, and should exclude all the summaries and serial numbers. That's reserved for the actual article of each individual book, and probably the subarticle of Neil's work itself. Meatspinclock 20:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there's been no dispute to that particular argument, and having looked at several other authors' bibliographies, I'm going to remove a great deal of the information about each one - mostly the formal bibliography trash, like the ISBN numbers and such. Like I stated before, the actual information is shown in each work's articles.

If anyone decides they have a problem, they can revert it back to as it was with hard-on-the-eyes paragraphs of needless fluff. Meatspinclock 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information just needs to be better presented, but not removed. The publisher has to be there, as well as dates. I'm working on this "problem" at List of the writings of William Monahan. You have to keep in mind that some people are going to want to use this list to construct there own physical collection of Neil Gaiman's works. Think about getting it past WP:FLC and what they would demand.-BillDeanCarter 13:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews[edit]

Neil Gaiman does some book reviews occasionally for the Washington Post.. sometimes full length, sometimes just a paragraph or two. here are some:

  • "Neil Gaiman on 'Black House' by Stephen King and Peter Straub". The Washington Post. 2001-09-16.
  • "Neil Gaiman on 'Summerland' by Michael Chabon". The Washington Post. 2002-10-06.
  • and there are other short reviews of books ancient and new at The Washington Post by Gaiman.

-BillDeanCarter 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Neil Gaiman bibliography. --Aervanath (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be moved to Neil Gaiman bibliography for several reasons.

1. A bibliography is defined as a list of works [1]

2. The title is shorter, more concise and places "Neil Gaiman," the primary topic of the article, at the beginning of the title instead of the end

3. The proposal on the WikiProjects Books talk page found here had no opposition.

4. The article being in the category Category:Bibliographies by author and not "Lists of works by author" shows bibliography to be the preferred term.

5. The article begins "This is a bibliography of works by Neil Gaiman."

6. The article was found on Neil Gaiman bibliography prior to being moved for the following reason: moved Neil Gaiman bibliography to List of works byNeil Gaiman: accuracy; some are not books, thus not a "bibliography" As stated above a bibliography is a list of works, not only books, so this argument is faulty. --Marcus Brute (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose from bibliography: "A bibliography, the product of the practice of bibliography, is a systematic list of books and other works such as journal articles," so it doesn't fit the description we have here. In this case "works" refers to what would fall under bibliography, filmography, discography, etc. which here includes both his books and comics (bibliography) and his screenwriting credits (filmography). Equally if you look at Category:Bibliographies by author you'll see a mix of both types - this is in that category for the bibliography part of this article. Also that "consensus" is only at the Books Project when this also falls under the Comics Project too (considering he rose to prominence thanks to his comics it might have been a better place to post your suggestion). If you look at Category:Lists of comics by creator this conforms with the others. And the opening argument isn't a good one for the renaming - it is an argument that the lead should be changed, (Emperor (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
"A bibliography, the product of the practice of bibliography, is a systematic list of books and other works." That quote is taken out of context. Bibliography goes on to say: "In earlier times, bibliography mostly focused on books. Now, both categories of bibliography cover works in other formats including recordings, motion pictures and videos, graphic objects, databases, CD-ROMs[3] and websites." If there is any proof that a bibliography can't include such work, I'd like to see it.--Marcus Brute (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional point: The section of the Neil Gaiman article for his works (including recording, films, etc.) is titled bibliography, further showing the title to be accurate.--Marcus Brute (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support suggested renaming - The term "bibliography" is reasonable to include all works an author has written. Gaiman has been a screenwriter, but not an actor or director (as far as I know), and he has written comics, but does not draw them (again as far as I know). My point is that all of his works are literary in nature, and thus bibliography is a good umbrella term for a listing thereof. Aleta Sing 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Total Revision[edit]

I plan to put the contents of this article in tables. I also plan to remove all the sub-categories only keeping Comics(I'll keep them divided by publisher), Film and Television (and deleting The Arthur and Simpsons, this is a bibliography, not a filmography) which will merge TV and Films since there isn't really enough to warrant keeping them separate. Audio-Dramas will replace the less specific Audio, audiobooks read by Gaiman can be moved to the notes section on the main bibliography, which will cover all novels, non-fiction, short story collections, and picture books, there will be a section in the table to denote type (look at Stephen King's bibliography to see what I'm saying), this will be the fist table on the page. I will start writing it now, and will update assuming nobody objects as soon as possible.24.233.113.155 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I mean what issues with the current structure do you think it will resolve, or how do you think a table is preferable? I had a look at Stephen King bibliography and it's just one big table, much harder to locate information in than this article now is. I agree on removing the cartoon appearances that he didn't write, but I am unconvinced by the rest of what you propose.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think this article is hard to navigate, and it is a bit of a mess. If my idea for a table is not well liked then I won't do it, but I still think that non-fiction and fiction should be merged, misc short stories should be separated from short stories collections, if the consensus is that collections should be kept separate from other books, that's fine, and Coraline, Odd and the Frost Giants and The Graveyard Book from Juvenile and Young Adult should be moved in with the main set of books, M is for Magic should go with the rest of the collections and the Picture Books could either be relabeled Children's Picture Books, or moved with the main books as previously proposed. Table or no, audiobook information can be noted where the book is listed and not separately, and the 'Where's Neil" CD, songwriting credits, and 8in8 EP should be removed, this is not a discography (maybe this can go on Neil's main page). Audio drama's written by Neil, like Signal to Noise can stay where they are. One thing I neglected to mention before, I also think that the publisher and ISBN should be removed. I have seen no other bibliography that lists these, they are available in the book's own article and it clutters this one. Still, I want to stress that I think the tables are a good idea, I think they are more professional and organized, and more appealing to the eye.24.233.113.155 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Dream[edit]

Silver Dream should not be listed under Neil Gaiman's fiction, although he developed the plot with Michael Reaves the book was entirely written by Michael and Mallory Reaves as Gaiman says here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npdHx4cnWJM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.15.160 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His name's on the cover, and he does receive a "story by" credit. It's somewhat unconventional for books, but as common as muck in the world of film, where a "story by" credit is unquestionably a writing credit. 70.31.80.179 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural Creatures[edit]

Recently, in my local library, I found a copy of "Unnatural Creatures: Stories Selected by Neil Gaiman". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16248246-unnatural-creatures

It is an anthology of 16 short stories from 1942 to 2011, from diferent genres, but all of them, as the tittle of the anthology suggest, with some unnatural creatures. It also include "Sunbird" by Gaiman and published in "Fragile Things: Short Fictions and Wonders" in 2006.

I don't know in what section of the bibliography should this anthology go.

--90.163.91.242 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Neil Gaiman bibliography. 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:

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) 14:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Norse Mythology[edit]

Hello, I'm just wondering why Neil's book "Norse Mythology" has neither a page, nor any mention on either his main page or this one? User:Chris VanVlair —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris VanVlair. I'm fairly certain the answer is "because nobody has thought to add anything about it". I don't think sources will be difficult to find. WP may be a little short of Gaiman-enthusiasts at the moment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I see now that NM actually is on this page, under "Nonfiction". It's mentioned on Neil Gaiman too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, since I'm a Gaiman-enthusiast... Norse Mythology (Neil Gaiman). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-fiction doesn't really seem like the right category for a book like this. I'd certainly class a book about the history of Norse mythology as non-fiction, but that's not what this book is. --James (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not regular fiction either, is it? Gaiman has retold parts of Heimskringla etc (sagas if you will) in his own words, and stuff like that isn't uncontroversially just "fiction". Fadesga, you put "anthropology-related" [2] on the article, do you have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have just removed that reference. --Fadesga (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we're back to book, then. czar, we discussed this book briefly at [3], do you have an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion remains as it was then (Norse Mythology (book)), unless new info/sources about its genre have come to light? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
czar Sorry, I wasn't very clear. The question was, should the book, on this page, be under nonfiction? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The unified academic library catalog WorldCat lists it as fiction fwiw. If it's going to be in its own section anyway, perhaps "Other books"? czar 10:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text hi[edit]

The difference between titles in italics vs. quotation marks is widely-enough known, but it's unclear what bold-face vs. lack thereof is supposed to indicate. The latter should probably be explained somewhere above the list. ―cobaltcigs 18:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that is not clear. Maybe the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs missing[edit]

Many books are missing ISBNs, which allow the reader to easily find librairies & other sources of each book. — Lentower (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to use {{cite book}}[edit]

I suggest all book entries be converted to use {{cite book}} including publisher & ISBNs. This template is increasingly being used across the English Wikipedia & helps the reader with a standardized formatting. — Lentower (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of boldface[edit]

Brewnou recently reverted a change of mine and added back a lot of boldface to this article, arguing that, "Bold type is used for easy visual differentiation between works by Gaiman and works created by others based on his ideas."

This isn't true, though. The bold text has a meaning to only a small number of readers. It isn't explained anywhere in the article, and to most readers it looks random. This was commented on two years ago (see a couple of sections up from this), and got no response. It's fixable, obviously, but no one has cared enough to add an explanation.

Even if an explanation is added, though, the bolding is a bad idea. It makes the page look terrible, it goes against MOS:NOBOLD, which says to avoid using boldface for emphasis, and it isn't necessary, since all the information is already there. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the boldface. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neil_Gaiman_bibliography&oldid=1207341916"