Talk:Path of the Puma

Deletion of "Publication details" section

@Animalparty: I noticed you deleted the publication section of this article. I tried to follow the "Article structure" section on Wikipedia:Wikiproject Books, which advises including a section on publication: Publication — detail the book's publication. This can include information regarding the publisher or imprint, when it was released, how the book was promoted (book tour, speaking engagements, published excerpts, etc.), formats (hardcover, paperback, audiobook, ebook, etc.), cover art, translations into other languages, or other details. Is there a better source of information about what to include/not include in a WP article about a book? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article:

* Release details / Editions / Publication

*{{cite book}} {{cite book |author= |title= |year= |publisher= |publication-date= |isbn=1234567890 }}

* title, author, publisher , year, pages, ISBNs – The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870—1914, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster New York 1977 Octavo, pp. 698, ISBN 0671225634, ISBN 0671244094 (Pbk.) – David Hackett Fischer (2004). Washington's Crossing, p. 564, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195170342.

* year, country, publisher (ISBN), Pub Date, edition – 1989, UK, Fontana (ISBN 0006165745), Pub Date 9 February 1989, Paperback

*list the first editions and perhaps the most respected current editions, mention if it is a partial list. Possible order: hardcover, paperback, audio book, e-book.

*contains XX photographs, X maps etc.

Thanks for considering the content of this article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: We should not include (or include as little as possible) materials from the publisher, author, and other affiliated sources per WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTPROMO. We care more about how a topic is received at large by independent, reliable sources than how it is described by affiliated sources. Where there is significant independent, secondary coverage of publication information beyond the trivial level found in databases, it can be a welcome addition, but if the Wikipedia article starts to even passingly resemble an official website, press release, or other hype and marketing material, then it has probably crossed the line from informing to promoting. Not all information, even if verifiable, need be included, per WP:VNOTSUFF, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Basic publication info (author, publisher, ISBN, page count, etc.) can go in the {{infobox book}} unless otherwise noteworthy. Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, I think it is an admirable but incomplete work-in-progress, and is not yet a widely held or official guideline, and thus should not overrule broader policies, guidelines, or elements of good composition. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)