Talk:Miss MacIntosh, My Darling

Wikipedia self-reference

This seems to be one of the exceptions allowed for in WP:SELF. The specific policy says:

Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia should be avoided where possible. This type of self-reference limits the use of Wikipedia, as an open source encyclopedia suitable for forking, as permitted by our license. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, not merely to perpetuate itself, so the articles produced should be useful, even outside the context of the project used to create them. This means that while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to "Wikipedia" or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. "this website").

The use here, that MMMD is #7 longest novel, is something that does not limit in any way any permitted reuse of this article outside the Wikipedia context. For example, Amazon currently has a shopping-enhanced feature associated with author biographies, tagging lists of books with purchase-friendly enhancements. See for example. If that article contained the Wikipedia self-reference, it would be just as informative in such a derived context as it is here. If Amazon expands to including the book articles themselves on their page, this Wikipedia list link would remain informative.

The point is there aren't too many stable lists of longest books out there, it's not always clear how reliable such a list is, and it seems better to be upfront about the location as a result. If Amazon or the Library of Congress or the Guinness Book of World Records maintained such a list, I'd be happy to link to them, and I'd be just as explicit as to which site I was linking to. Contrast this with links to List of highest-grossing films. Such links are pretty much standard in the articles on the top films, but none of the links refer to "Wikipedia". The reason is that particular list seems to be an easy to establish objective fact, so nobody needs to be told which list out of the many guaranteed identical copies they are linking to.

I note that you did not merely edit out the word "Wikipedia", but went further and deleted the link itself. WP:SELF is only concerned with the explicit mention of Wikipedia in the article, not with informative internal links, which are usually encouraged. Choor monster (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

All right, fair enough. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I still think it would make for a stronger statement if an outside source were cited, but I guess this works and it's better to be upfront.
Ulmanor (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to cite an outside source, but I've only been able to find one or two blog posts out there.

You now see what happens when "Wikipedia" is left out, in imitation of all the films that link to the list of top grossing films. It makes it appear as if there really is some definitive definition of "longest novel", and this article on MMMD is plugging into that definition. But if you go over to the archived discussions on the list article, you'll see it has generated its own small controversy. By including "Wikipedia" here, I am emphasizing that this list is actually a consensus/compromise, and I am helping a reader--both on Wikipedia and on any derived modification--maintain a certain mental distance from the "MMMD is #7" claim.

Imagine if there were two other respectable longest novel lists maintained at reliable outside sources, say Alpha.com put MMMD at #6 and Beta.com put it at #9. It would be damned peculiar to refer to Alpha.com says #6, Beta.com says #9, and Wikipedia says #7.

(I know you got this. I am running at the mouth now for the benefit of future editors, here or on Women and Men where the same issue exists.) Choor monster (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I'm not happy with this picture being in the article. At least not yet. I'm not going to do a thing about it, except to move it lower in the article, below the infobox.

US law fair use rationale by itself is not good enough for using the picture here. See WP:FUR. Every time a copyrighted picture is used in an article, a rationale must be added to the picture's page. See, for example, File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg. When I added the Young with MMMD manuscript photograph, I deliberately included it in the List of longest novels only. I feel it is not-so-fair-use in the book/author articles until the articles have grown to some length.

I suppose at some time in the next two months I'll be able to really contribute to this article, instead of just the start/stub I created, at which point the picture will fit in nicely. You're all welcome to help out! Choor monster (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miss MacIntosh, My Darling. 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/20121127122906/http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/3547/the-art-of-fiction-no-66-marguerite-young to http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/3547/the-art-of-fiction-no-66-marguerite-young/

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) 07:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Paris Review

[1] might be worth citing. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)