Talk:Very Short Introductions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

University of Oxford

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Advertisement? List? Noteworthy?

I don't see how this is any more of an "advertisement" than any of the other semi-gushing articles on book series in Wikipedia. Sure, it's promoting them, but just writing an article is promoting it in a sense. Again, look at any of the others and explain to me how they're different. BTW, I wrote the original article and I'm not on the payroll of Oxford. Revolver 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's an advertisement. This "article" is exactly like a page in the OUP catalog. *Why* you want to write ads or free catalog copy for OUP if you're not on their payroll is a different question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.206.111 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this page very useful in a non-promotional way. Specifically, the fact that the British history VSIs are from the Oxford Illustrated History (of which there is a much newer edition), and that the Past Masters ones are 20-30 years old. --50.100.52.181 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if this page had more information about authors and how this body of work came together. I had a cursory look at it and it does seem that this is a very commercially focused product. It's too bad. it's a really great idea as a collection of work. Nimming (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually find this page very helpful since this is the only place (besides the list on Goodreads [here], which has some mistakes) where I can see all the numbering and the "previously published as". I corrected some of the new titles, but the numbering after 425 (Plate Tectonics) still needs further confirmation. Zen Light (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these numbers being sourced from? Neither the web or print publication dates listed on the OUP site match up with the ones in this article. 2602:306:C4CB:4B40:9AFC:11FF:FECD:BFAC (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every book has a number printed on its spine, which is unfortunately not listed on the official website. Some titles also have the complete numbered list published so far printed at the very end, which you can find on Amazon preview or google book preview. Zen Light (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page very helpful. Maybe, though, we should make a separate List-class article for all the volumes and then an article about the series. More than 400 items is a lot to put in the body of an article. Pages about television shows with only a few dozen episodes have separate pages to list them. --StringRay (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article on a product is unsourced, other than to the producer. The producer happens to be an august publisher; if it weren't for this, there probably would have already been calls either (A) to demonstrate noteworthiness via independent commentary or (B) to delete. So where's the independent commentary? -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15 October 2017 - An editor called Aureliano Babilonia has helpfully removed these two notices. However the article remains a bit of a stub compared to what it could be, especially with the extra commentaries/sources that are available. I will add a note about this below, under 'Additional sources'. Michael Hampson (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split list to separate article

The list of titles now has over 700 items. Any objections if I split this to a separate article? cagliost (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. cagliost (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VSI 60 ((William) Shakespeare)

The two different books on Shakespeare, in the OUP Very Short Introductions, series sharing the VSI series number 60

The original VSI 60 was Germaine Greer's Shakespeare. (I found it a disappointment, not really fitting the VSI concept. Having been carried forward from the Past Masters series, it analysed Shakespeare as a philosopher, and assumed detailed familiarity with all the plays.)

There is a new book in the series, William Shakespeare, by Stanley Wells (much more in line with the VSI concept, giving some background and biography and introductions to all the main works).

Having cleverly avoided duplication of titles ('Shakespeare' versus 'William Shakespeare'), OUP then re-uses the series *number* 60, evicting Germaine Greer from the numbered canon. I do not know of this happening to any other title. Perhaps it explains the oddly-worded (presumably computer-generated) note at the top of OUP's VSI page today: "There are 519 primary works and 518 total works in the Very Short Introductions Series".

Of course both of these books should be listed here on the Wikipedia main page. I'll let others decide how. Or anyone brave enough can just go ahead and do it.

Here's a photograph of the spines of both books: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/michaelhampson.co.uk/VSI60.jpg

Michael Hampson, 23 September 2017

Thank you. Yes, I just went ahead and did it.

I wonder whether an article on this series is merited. (See below.) If it is merited, I wonder whether the list within it is merited. If the list is merited, it seems odd to me that ISBNs aren't provided. Anyway, I've provided them for this pair as the reader might find them particularly helpful.

Your photograph VSI60 is of interest. I'm no copyright expert but I think that it would not violate the copyright of either OUP or the designer(s) of the covers. If you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, it could be used here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead if you wish to use it. I took the picture, so I have the right to say that I waive all rights. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/michaelhampson.co.uk/VSI60.jpg - Michael Hampson, 28 September 2017

Thank you for the friendly gesture, but this would not work. You can upload it yourself. This is likely to be a frustrating experience; but when you've done it once, the second and subsequent uploads become routine and easy.

A commonsense reaction would be "Oh FFS, this humdrum photo took mere seconds to set up. It has no artistic or other distinction. Anyone could have taken it. So if you want it, stop wasting my time and add it already." I'd sympathize. But common sense and copyright law are related only tenuously, if at all. -- Hoary (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VSI60.jpg Michael Hampson (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources and potential expansion of article

The article has been tidied up, and two of the three notices have been removed (thankyou to those responsible, October 2017), but as a result it has become a bit of a stub (ie very short, appropriately or not), and still relies heavily on OUP sources. Might someone like to go ahead and expand it using these additional sources (and any others that anyone can suggest)? This would deal with a whole range of criticisms: stub, noteworthiness, single source, advertisement etc - and could justify the removal of the one remaining notice. Michael Hampson (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker (dated 16 October 2017): https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/how-to-be-a-know-it-all

The BBC: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170825-an-easy-way-to-read-more-each-year

Eye Magazine from 2003: http://www.eyemagazine.com/opinion/article/the-learning-brand-50

History Today magazine in November 2009 https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-212105782/a-fairly-short-introduction-to-very-short-introductions

Oxford Today magazine: http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-07-03-very-short-introductions-very-big-success-it-presents-its-500th-subject

The Bookseller magazine https://www.thebookseller.com/news/oups-very-short-introductions-hit-400

And finally ... US Supreme Court Judge Chief Justice John Roberts reads them for pleasure: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-30/chief-justice-says-pop-references-can-help-convey-message

Michael Hampson (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Very Short Introductions. 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/20131224101632/http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/series/general/vsi/9780199590599.do?sortby=pubDateAscend&page=32&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10 to http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/series/general/vsi/9780199590599.do?sortby=pubDateAscend&page=32&thumbby=10&thumbby_crawl=10

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Dummies?

RubyJester has added a "See Also" section that includes the following two items:

For Dummies, a similar series of introductory books
Rough Guides, whose non-travel books also cover culture and science

Discuss!--Michael Hampson (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actualization

The published volumes following "poststructuralism" are: Mark Katz: Music and Technology / Carrie Menkel-Meadow: Negotiation / Daniel P. Todes: Ivan Pavlov / Luke Russell: Evil / Angela E. Douglas: Microbiomes, they are missing. I'm for deleting not published volumes (only announced) in the actual list, at least for the years following 2022. There are book-projects in this series who were announced but never published and the announced date of publishing is often postponed (escpecially dates like 2025).--Claude J (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was going to come and mention these missing titles. Is there anywhere we can fit these missing titles and is there a reliable source for the numbering order? There also appear to be two Poststructuralism books by Catherine Belsey in the list, at 073 and 713. Is there a reliable source we can use to confirm the correct numbering? Goldcactus (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]