Talk:The Second Confession

Notes on the infobox

The infobox has been modified to conform with the novels project style guidelines, which indicate that the infobox should describe "only the media types in which the novel was originally available. For example, eighteenth-century novels were never published in 'hardback and paperback' nor in audiobook so it is inappropriate to list those print subtypes." Since the Nero Wolfe books (1934–1975) were originally available in hardcover, and only later published in other formats, the infoboxes for these Rex Stout novels and novella collections are being amended to read "Print (Hardcover)" -- with "Media type" describing only the first-edition printing.

The ISBN field will be completed, but read "NA" by request of the novels project. Subsequent releases of the book are listed with their ISBNs in a section of the article headed "Release details."

The genre in the infobox is being listed as Detective fiction, a classification that includes both the novels and the novella collections. Novels and novella collections are clearly differentiated from each other in the articles' lead paragraphs, and in categories that appear at the bottom of the articles. -- WFinch 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

7/26/2012 Maintenance tag

I assume that the tag requesting citations for verification in the plot summary is the work of someone's editing applet (or bot or toy or whatever the current term is) and that it cannot tell the difference between reality and fiction as the article's topic. In that case, let's remove the tag on the grounds that it's inane.

Or, if my assumption is wrong and if someone really believes that the plot summary should employ references for verification, I would be happy to add a citation to the book itself, perhaps immediately after the first word in the summary, "A". That would represent a circular reference, of course, and would likely get its own maintenance tag.

Pfui.

TurnerHodges (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. As WP:PSTS states, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." The plot summary presents a basic, objective description of the plot, derived from the primary source — the subject of the article, the novel — and does not require another source.

Is there a shortcut named WP:PFUI? — WFinch (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

TY again. Regarding WP:PFUI, there certainly should be one. Possibly for use only by curmudgeons, or a 16th century prince of Savoy named Philibert. TurnerHodges (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:PFUI and WP:SATISFACTORY are both needed. I wonder which would be used more often. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

YW to your TY, and a TY back at you for the time put into that WP:SATISFACTORY plot summary in the first place.

Oh, I think somebody needs to look into some personalized license plates. — WFinch (talk)

That's a good reminder that I've been meaning to clarify a few points in the summary; now done. TurnerHodges (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have two magnetic buttons on my refrigerator, one of which says "PFUI" and one of which says "SATISFACTORY", which were the dinner favors at a Wolfe Pack banquet a few years ago.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)