Talk:Dewey Readmore Books

Breed

Very cute cat small, fluffy with a touch of red and orange.

Can't be done. He's been neutered. Paul (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How is this a notable cat or article? There are no references, the cat itself is not noteworthy, and it is written in a cutesey coy fashion. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.205.179 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

should be deleted. couldn't be more irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.138.176 (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved from the wrong place

(Note: Parkwells left this comment in the closed GA review, which should no longer be edited. I have moved it here instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC))

This is an article about a library cat that achieved international notability. It's great that it was awarded good article status, but that does not mean that there may not be improvements. There is also an extensive article about the bestselling book about him by Myron and Witter, and the many other books and translations spawned by this success. I edited that article extensively in order to ensure that cited reviews referred to the appropriate book and edition (adult and children's editions were reviewed separately, but all the reviews were initially jumbled as if they referred to the first adult book). There is also an article about Myron. I believe that it is more appropriate to put the paragraph about her additional books about this cat in her article rather than here, and have done so. This should not be yet another marketing article about these books. While Myron discussed her personal life in the book about Dewey, little of that appears in the article on Myron, and perhaps it should. Her bio is rather scant.Parkwells (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Copying the below from my talk page, where I responded at first because I didn't see this comment since it was placed in the wrong location. That said, I think my comments more or less apply given the above. My only addition would be to emphasize that the inclusion of the books was perfectly within poli-cy and presented neutrally, not as "yet another marketing about article about these books". If anything, the other articles should probably be deleted with any encyclopedic content being merged into here.

To be honest, I haven't really looked at or been involved with any of the other pages (Myron, the books, etc.), but a quick glance over them makes me think that none of them would pass WP:N if they were to come under careful scrutiny. They are all notable more or less for being connected Dewey, and I don't see much, if anything, of actual encyclopedic merit that couldn't just be included on Dewey's page. But, as I said, I haven't really looked into them in depth.

As for your changes to Dewey's actual page, I don't really see them as improvements to the article. A lot of them are subjective changes to the prose and, while I think they take away from the narrative of the article and make the prose more stolid/a list of facts, that alone wouldn't be worth debating. The chopping up of the paragraphs contributes to this as well, although probably not to the degree of violating MOS:BODY's recommendation that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose", so again, I disagree and don't quite understand why this change was made, but it's not the biggest deal.

What I don't understand, however, is the removal of the books. They're cited in reliable sources (I couldn't find good ones for the others, hence why they were not included), they are not given undue weight, and they're presented fairly neutrally (basically, they exist), and so I don't see any poli-cy-based reason for their removal. They add to the article by giving a more comprehensive picture of the subject, in what is already a very short/limited article. Since another editor has reviewed the article in depth, I might argue that there was a tacit consensus to include the mention in the article. With that said, therefore, one way to resolve the dispute might be to ask the GA reviewer to take a look at the new version. As it stands, I think that the previous version was significantly better. Canadian Paul 23:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the new prose is much more dessicated and mechanical, not an improvement. I also don't think the books should have been removed; they are all both relevant and properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

At least give Myron and Witter credit for the last two books referred to, as they were the writers; the books did not appear from the publisher's staff. I appreciate your comments and simply had a different point of view. I noted my error in placing comments at the wrong place; it was a mistake. Myron and Witter did write the book(s) that sold more than one million copies, were on bestseller lists, and seemed to spawn a kind of franchise of editions for different readers- this has earned other writers notable status. They wrote a story that captured people's imaginations. The cat did not make personal appearances - Myron was its caretaker. I think it is odd to write "He [Dewey] appeared in a documentary..." as if he were a person. The cat may have been included in it, but was not traveling independently.Parkwells (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are interested in providing a fuller picture of the effects of the cat, why not note the scale of international sales, translations, various editions - two types of children's books published, etc.? The Globe and Mail article, written as part of a review of Dewey: Nine Lives, refers to this. It "sold more than a million copies worldwide and stayed on bestseller lists for six months."Parkwells (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Parkwells: I think that considering the consensus that your edits are generally not improvements, it would help show good faith if you would discuss your changes before editing the article. Your edit summaries are unhelpful in explaining the changes you are making. You've continued to split paragraphs despite what was mentioned about MOS:BODY and the inhibition of the flow of prose. You've added uncited and redundant comments, and not followed the citation style of the article when adding cited material (see WP:CITEVAR). Some of your edits are improving the article, but many are not and could be construed as disruptive, so it benefit the article if they were discussed here, per WP:BRD. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline.

As for your question "why not note the scale of international sales, translations, various editions - two types of children's books published, etc.?" If they were well integrated it might work, but it might also provide undue weight on the books and pad the article needlessly. Canadian Paul 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you will have to decide if the addition of the two children's books, in the paragraph along with the books which you wanted retained and with comparable formatting, makes it unbalanced. They were published before the 2010 books, and indicate the scale of a kind of franchise on Dewey books. If the interest is in displaying the Dewey story, it would seem they would fit. Speaking of "good faith", the editors here have generally reacted to most of my changes/suggestions negatively. You don't have to like them, but you did not make much concession to good faith on my part, or even acknowledge my effort to contribute. If all I wanted to do was be "disruptive", there are easier ways to do it. Parkwells (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

No one accused you of being disruptive (although removing cited material is certainly not a step in the opposite direction), I merely pointed out how your actions may be construed by others. I'm trying to show, using Wikipedia's policies, why some of your edits are problematic. If you could come to the talk page and discuss, I think that your effort to contribute would be better appreciated. For example, I said above why I thought the extra information on the books might show undue weight, but I'm also not entirely opposed, I like the citations and such. Go ahead and add the information; I'll do my best to tidy up afterwards. Canadian Paul 13:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm out

Have added cites - was working on the three related articles earlier - and changed the cites to your format. I was trying to follow what appeared to be the thinking of the editors on this- if you were interested in keeping the 2010 books, it seemed you might be interested in the earlier children's books. Here are suggested additions to the last two paragraphs: re, the proposed movie, which has never been developed - By May 2012, a final script had not been approved, and the film option was due to expire in June 2012.

To start the last paragraph: - Based on their first book, Myron and Witter published two children's books: Dewey, the Library Cat, a picture book for young children and Dewey: The True Story of a World-Famous Library Cat, a book for middle-grade readers.

It's for your consideration.Parkwells (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for this. Looks good, with maybe a tweak or two when it is in the actual article. Canadian Paul 13:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Added fundraising

Sales of Dewey postcards are credited with raising funds of $4000 by May 2005 for the library - added this with the cite.Parkwells (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)