Difference between revisions of "Talk:Rules and standards discussions"

From ISFDB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by JLaTondre (Talk); changed back to last version by Mhhutchins)
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Omnibus discussion==
+
This is the talk page for [[Rules and standards discussions]]. It is intended to be used to discuss what is happning on that page, how to format items, archiving, etc. Substantive discussions go on the page itself.
−
I have been labeling single books containing multiple stories with the one common author and one common theme.
 
  
−
:If I understand the sentence correctly, you are following the dictionary.doc definition: "A printed anthology of the works of one author or of writings on related subjects". Genre bibliographers, however, usually follow a more specific definition, namely definition B2 in the Oxford English Dictionary: "several previously printed works by the same author, sometimes on the same theme, published in one large volume". That's the definition used by Clute/Nicholls' ''Encyclopedia of Science Fiction'': "omnibus is a book that assemles previously published volumes" (p. xxxiii of the 1993 edition). [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:55, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
+
== Archive ==
−
 
 
−
==Data Verification==
 
−
Possible of book sources I would list would "Library of Congress" catalog, Other library catalogs (Univ. of California(?) has a large SF collection), publisher or authors website, and last but not least Suspect/unconfirmed.
 
−
 
 
−
:Well, www.sigla.ru is already present in the list of [[Sources of Bibliographic Information]] and it searches 1,600 online catalogs simultaneously, including the LoC catalog (Locis) and the UC catalog (Melvyl) mentioned above. The interface is not very user friendly even if you find the tiny button that changes the default language to English (and make sure to deselect the Boston library, which is not configured correctly and sends a truckload of records back), but it's very powerful. You have to be especially careful with Locis because the Library of Congress gets advance publication information and doesn't always purge its catalog of the books that were never published. So if a small press announces 4 books and sends their descriptions and ISBNs to LoC, there is a good chance that at least some of the records may be still there even though that small press went under shortly thereafter.
 
−
 
 
−
:Going back to Sigla, I am not sure that we want to have a single checkbox for it. What you get back is not necessarily a recreatable set of records: some Z39.50 servers may be down at random times and, besides, if you get 2,000 records back for a popular title, you may not be able to do meaningful verification. On the other hand, a search of 1600 libraries can be extremely useful when dealing with truly obscure authors or titles, the kind where there are just a few copies surviving worldwide. We may wanr to have a special verification dropdown box for library catalogs with all the major suspects listed up front and then an "Other Catalogs" choice with a free text expalantion. But we are still in the early phases of the verification subsystem design, so anything may happen :-) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:55, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
For website sources it would be nice to include the link to the source[,] not necessary for the standard sites.
 
−
 
 
−
:That's another interesting question. I try to give the URLs for the sources of especially obscure titles, e.g. see the Notes section of the following [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?186255 Kris Neville title]. We may be able to come up with a way of putting this information in the database in a more structured way, but there will always be that obscure stuff that requires a free text field. Fodo fro thought :-) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 19:55, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Some method of marking a data point closed.  Two different(separate and complete) reliable sources by two different contributors (total of 2 not 4) mark the point closed.  Additional verifications can be added. This would allow contributors to concentrate on missing data.
 
−
 
 
−
:Actually, Al had an even cleverer idea a little while back: Use the verification data already entered to calculate a "confidence level" number for all publications and works. We just need to assign weights to different sources, e.g. a singel physical verification when an editor had the book in his or her hands may judged to be 80% confidence level, but an Amazon.com entry may be only 30% since Amazon's data is often dirty. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:06, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Bibliographic Category Definitions==
 
−
Are these for "long works" or "short works"? For Shortworks I would think of adopting Locus's categories would help keep thing consistent.
 
−
 
 
−
:Oh, you mean the stuff that can be found on [http://www.locusmag.com/index/abbrev.html this page], e.g. "short story (4-20 pages, 1,000-7,499 words)" or "novelette (21-45 pages, 7,500-17,499 words)"? That's pretty much the definitions that Al proposed on the main page. In my response, I pointed out that these boundaries mostly come from the current rules for Hugo/Nebula/etc voting (which are actually much more complicated, but we don't need to go there now), but it helps to remember that these definitions have changed over time. What Don Wollheim used to publish as "two full length novels!" 45 years ago may be barely considered a novelette now. Hence the potential for editor confusion. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:06, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Proposed Scope of the Project==
 
−
Speculative fiction or NOT?
 
−
Past Science Fiction - Written in the distant past referring to a future date but the date has already come and gone.
 
−
 
 
−
:That's a good and perfectly non-controversial point. I will add it to the main page shortly. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:18, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Series creators==
 
−
Tricky.  My database has a "Creator" role for authors mentioned on cover but no contribution to the writing.  Like Keith Laumer's Bolo series. Laumer is mentioned on the cover but has no works in the book sometimes.
 
−
 
 
−
:This publishing trick has become popular lately. ''Philip Jose Farmer's The Dungeon'', ''Robert Silverberg's Time Tours'', etc. Sometimes the series creator will have a Work in the Publication, but more often he won't. We probably want to have a way of capturing his contribution, but it's not clear what the best approach would be. We don't have a standard way of capturing the editors' names for single author books (novels/collections) either, and in some cases they can be important. For example, [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?AVRMDVDSNTR1998 one of the Publication records] of Avram Davidson's Work [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?26595 The Avram Davidson Treasury: A Tribute Collection] has the following Note: "Edited by Robert Silverberg and Grania Davis" while the [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?THVRMDVDSN1999 other Publication] simply lists Silverberg and Davis as co-authors. We will need a way to standardize this mess. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:18, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Pseudonyms==
 
−
I somewhat of like ISFDB idea of listing "published as" (abbreviated) names as pseudonyms but it gets confusing. 
 
−
Pseudonym to some people would mean an addition names used to publish where the author has already publish under another name. OR A name used by several author (house name).
 
−
 
 
−
:The whole pseudonym-handling section of the database is currently undergoing a facelift -- or so Al is telling me :) As luck would have it, he is currently in the process of writing a Help page for pseudonyms -- see [[Editing - Titles]]. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
So saying all that maybe splitting it into several sub categories.
 
−
 
 
−
Pseudonym-PA (Published As) Covers different printings of the name and names always used versus legal name or first last combination or first MI last combination.
 
−
 
 
−
Pseudonym-H (House) Common name used by several authors.
 
−
 
 
−
Pseudonym Name used versus existing published name.
 
−
 
 
−
:Unfortunately, this isn't as simple as it may appear :-( There are house names that, over time, become personal pseudonyms. There are even Publications published "as by" <author's real name> and <author's pseudonym> Yes, it sounds really bizarre, I know, but see John Wyndham's bibliography. There are individuals who write as multiple people and there are co-authors who write as multiple people, etc. It gets really complicated, that's why the current version of the database is trying to dissociate the "Working Name" field that is associated with Works from the "Published As [by]" field that is associated with Publications. There is much more on it on the Help page that Al is writing as we speak :-) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Series==
 
−
Something I found out. Series names change.  So a Series AKA is needed. 
 
−
 
 
−
:Oh, sure, there can be multiple names for a series. It can be known as X in one country and Y in another country (see Douglass' biblio) or it may be that different readers or publishers have different names for it, etc. I am not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to start adding programmatic support for multiple series names -- already a complicated area with support for an unlimited number of nested series -- though, since we can simply use a slash to concatenate two names together. Thankfully, there aren't ''that'' many series out there (yet), so a search on either series name should pull up the correct series. At this point, Series searches return individual Works and not Series names, which may not be the best of handling this problem. More discussion will probably be needed. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Series names also are duplicated. I seen library catalog list series names with either an author name or main character suffixed to it.
 
−
 
 
−
: Yes, it's a known issue, which is currently being handled by convention, e.g. ''Mars'' and ''Mars [2]''. Not perfect, by any means, and something to look into in the foreseeable future. We may need more programming muscle first, though, since this is an all volunteer effort and most of us need sleep from time to time. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Some stories have more than one series.  Retief and Bolo series have connection points. 
 
−
 
 
−
:Well, Laumer is a special case. He had a habit of throwing references around that made some works appear interconnected. However, there are definitely some series that have important crossover books and we may want to beef up support for them at some point. For now, if there are, say, 10 books in Series A, 12 books in Series B and 3 books in the crossover series, we can make the whole 25 book mostrosity a superseries encompassing three subseries: A, B, and the 3 crossover books. Not perfect, but it should tie us over for now. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
I think treating "universes" (what I call a set of stories set in a common setting) (like Connan, Start Trek, Star Wars) as a series would be helpful and then allow more than one series to be attached to a story.
 
−
 
 
−
:That's pretty much the current SOP, e.g. see ''Star Wars Universe'', ''Star Trek Universe'', etc. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
The order(s) in a series should be down played.
 
−
 
 
−
:Well, series order is something that many lances have been broken over, but let's not overlook the forest for the trees. Many, probably most, series have a perfectly straightforward series order: 1,2,3,4,5, etc. If a potential reader is considering giving [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?581 Xanth] or [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?2220 Dray Prescot] a try, there is a great deal of value in informing her where to start. Having said, there are certainly thorny areas here, which we may want to add enhanced support for in future versions of the software, but usually it all comes down to the manhours that we have available. It's easy for us to say "Hey, Al, wouldn't XYZ be a great feature to add to the system!", but he is the one who gets to stay up late coding it :-) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Also a series order that is missing is "Title Order" What is stated on the cover.
 
−
Published order I think would cause more problems confusing is with the title order or different publication / printings.
 
−
 
 
−
:For now, we just have one field for "Series order", so the most logical number goes there, presumably the number on the cover. I would argue that "reading order" (when it diverges from the "official" and/or chronological order) is something that could be of value to prospective readers, but it's highly subjective, what with prequels and such. A free text "Note" field associated with each Series where editors could add their comments would be probably the easiest and most flexible thing to implement. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
--[[User:Lorenzr|Ray]] 12:26, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Sorry if this not the correct spot for this. Very new to contributing to a Wiki
 
−
 
 
−
:No problem, these are all good points and I will move them to the main [[Bibliographic Rules]] page shortly. Some of the issues/ideas are new and will likely be added to the list of proposed features. Others are known deficiencies that we haven't had time to address yet. Yet another class consists of things we have gone over many times in the past but were unable to find an implementable solution. Perhaps we need a FAQ explaining why certain things are the way they are. Anyway, I and perhaps Al will respond to your points later today -- thanks for contributing :) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 12:45, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::I will leave this discussion here for now and will eventually move whatever conclusions we arrive at to the main page. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 20:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::I'll stir the pot a little more, since short stories are pretty much all that I work on.  Why is it that Non Fiction Series, Fiction Series, and Anthology Series, all have separate headings on an Author's Bibliography page, yet Collection Series are lumped in with Fiction Series, ala Fafhrd and Gray Mouser by Fritz Leiber, and Short Stories, very few of which are marked as being in a Series, also get pushed into Fiction Series.  Would it be possible to move Collections and Short Stories that are part of series have their own header.[[User:CoachPaul|CoachPaul]] 09:06, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: I believe part of the problem is there are several conflicting ideas on how things should be organized. Al has shifted how short stories vis-à-vis series get handled a couple of times and so far has not come up with a system that makes everyone happy.  In the past we did have separate sections for anthology series, short stories, etc.  Note - that while it's dormant at the moment [[Requirements:Author_Display]] is a page dedicated to how the bibliographies should be displayed. {{Marc Kupper}} 15:57, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Publisher Series ==
 
−
 
 
−
Here's something I've never seen discussed before.  How do we handle publishers' series?  i.e., the only thing a series of books have in common is an over-arching title which the publisher uses to market the publications.  While verifying a few items by [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Philip_Jos%E9_Farmer Philip Jose Farmer] I looked under COLLECTIONS to find the "Best of" volumes published by Crown in 1984.  They weren't there, so I was seconds away from adding them when I noticed a listing for them at the top of the page under FICTION SERIES: Classics of Modern Science Fiction.  I've got most of the books published in the series so I thought about going through the db and putting them into this series.  But then I thought again.  Wouldn't that confuse people (like me) who go to an author's page looking for a novel or collection and not find it?  And what about novels that are part of both an author's series and a publisher's series?  And what if novels are reprinted by different publishers under different series names (like the Avon/Equinox SF Rediscovery Series, or the Garland Library of SF, or the Ballantine Adult Fantasy Series)?  I've come to the conclusion that publishers' series should be totally ignored.  Is there a rule already established about such a thing?  [[User:Mhhutchins|Mhhutchins]] 21:07, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Unless a book can be in multiple series there are enough that fall into a author/universe series and into a publisher series that publishers series are not worth using the series field for. A note with a link to a wiki page on the publishers series is probably best. [[User:Dcarson|Dana Carson]] 21:46, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: I'll second Dana on that and have been using the series wiki at times to try to explain the various permutations on how a series has been organized. It's pretty frustrating because nearly every day I'll run across a book that seems to conflict with ''something'' related to a  series. Over on wikipedia there are regular edit-wars over Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover for example. I thought I could solve part of the problem for myself by adding a column to the DAW list that contains exactly what's stated in each publication about the publication's series membership. It turns out even there it's fuzzy because DAW would sometimes not state series membership on the cover and title page but instead may bury a comment on the flyleaf or will have a list of books by the author broken down into what look like series.
 
−
 
 
−
:: As for what the main ISFDB display should use - I'm not aware of any rules for or against using a publisher's series.  It has resulted in confusion when I see that some books got entered under one series and others under another. Before the find-duplicates thing was added this was much worse as there would be a random mix of title records under both series and often times publications were duplicated. {{Marc Kupper}} 16:24, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Rules concerning personal notes? ==
 
  
−
I verified [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?PCTRHBTN191981 this publication] awhile back.  In the meantime, someone has place a note "Mine is misbound, with pages 16-30 coming first."  I'm afraid that someone will think that since I verified the edition that the note was mine.  In the case of personalized notes such as this, wouldn't it be  a good idea of the person identified themselves?  And while saying that, there have been instances where I've verified editions with personal notes without identifying myself, usually along the lines as "The verified copy was price-clipped." or "The verified copy had no cover".  These are added to explain why there is no cover artist or price for a verified copy.  Is there a  standard procedure, and if not, could it be considered?  Thanks. [[User:Mhhutchins|Mhhutchins]] 21:27, 6 Jul 2007 (CDT)
+
* I just archived a number of older sections (about 33 sections) from the project page, because it was getting rather large. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  
−
: Signing an entry seems like a good idea but I don't want it to be a "rule."  If the note reflects something that's not in your copy of of a publication then could update the note explaining that the issue mentioned was not observed in your copy.  It's your choice on if you want to sign or nor sign the updated note. {{Marc Kupper}} 04:25, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)
+
* I just archived 45 sectiosn from the main discussion page, and 12 substantive discussion sections the formerly lived on this talk page. I am also going to move the two most recent discussion sections 9threads) from this talk page to the current discussion page, where they will eventually join the next archive. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
−
 
 
−
: I think that's my note: I don't recall adding it to a verified edition though. Were the interior artwork entries on there when you verified it, or are those new additions too? I recall finding them a pain to do as they're not all spelt the way I would naturally spell them. Anyway, I don't own the book any more (well, it might be still in my "to dispose of pile", but if so it WILL be gone soon) so don't really want to add my name to the note, I'm not going to be able to answer any further questions about it. Feel free to change it to a note that says something like "at least one misbound printing has been seen, with pages 16-30 coming first", or just delete it, I'm not that bothered. I remember it being a very annoying publication, poorly printed, and wasn't impressed with the art either. :-/ [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:45, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
: My apologies to you if I did stomp all over a verified pub without the courtesy of a note to you at least. It worried me enough to check the local database backup I have to see when I added the note, but all I can tell from that is that it's note 69713 and we were up to 82725 as of 12th June - do we add 6000 notes a month? [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:45, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Anyway, back to the actual discussion: Yes, it's probably wise to sign your name to a confusing pub note like that, whether or not it's verified, if you're going to hang on to the pub. If you're NOT going to hang on to it, it's probably best to add a neutral note that won't make someone else hesitate from verifying it. I recall mentioning the idea of another level of verification somewhere (all it would take, I think, is another entry in the "Bibliographic References" table, which any Mod can do) for "Verified a Physical copy but am not keeping it for further questioning" or something like that. We're currently working on a "The verifier is the one that gets questioned/notified" basis, and I'm not terribly comfortable with that as I WANT to get rid of about a hundred books that I've  verified, but until we get multiple verifications sorted it seems "Verification=Expert Adviser on that pub". I know I don't want notifications when someone adds the price to my (often) price-obscured pubs, I think I usually add enough notes to make it clear what edition I have: but I'm interested when someone tells me where the Cover Artist credit I missed can actually be found, or how to read a particular publisher's copyright page and fill in the blanks about which were hardcovers, which are likely to be the same ISBN or retain the same page count, etc. I'm constantly learning things about publishers, imprints, magazines, etc: and I still have a major learning curve on the Wiki side of things here, but I'd like to separate the books I physically still own and can answer penetrating questions on from the "books I had, entered, verified, and disposed of".  [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:45, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::This discussion has brought me to a decision to identify myself in the notes if I make changes or additions to a verified edition.  This adds an extra dimension to the original verification.  As for Bill's comments about a standard definition of verification, perhaps there is a need for clarification of the responsibilites of declaring oneself to be a pub's VERIFIER (caps intentional).  I don't plan on selling any of the books that I verified, but who knows what the future may hold. It reminds me of those wonderful bibliographies published by Underwood-Miller in which the bibliographer identified all pubs that he had physically examined.  It didn't mean that he owned it or intended to keep it ad infinitum.  What keeps someone from verifying a library book and then returning it?
 
−
::And, Bill, you're right about [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?PCTRHBTN191981 Pictures at an Exhibition], which has to be perhaps the worst example of bookcraft that I have in my collection.  But it does contain the first appearance of a Michael Bishop story, and adding to that the expense of being an imported publication, it remains in my collection. [[User:Mhhutchins|Mhhutchins]] 20:08, 7 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: Well, I've tried adding a signature to notes [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?112081 here] but it doesn't look very satisfactory. :-/ I'm reluctant to accredit the EXISTING notes.  [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:15, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
:::: Kraang's had another go at it now, how does it look to you all? [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 14:27, 10 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
::: But I'm definitely tired of asking questions of verifiers too, e.g. [[User_talk:Unapersson#The_Quest_for_Tanelorn|6 questions here]]! Oh, and Mike, I haven't found my misprint of "Pictures at an Exhibition" but if I do, you can have it as a prize for reaching the official 1500 verifications first. (I can't keep up, too many pesky kids have verified my stuff already, go beat them to 2000 and beyond! Watch our for Don Erikson though....) [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:15, 9 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: re: What keeps someone from verifying a library book and then returning it?
 
−
:::: While the bulk of my verifications are from my own collection I regularly verify books from the library, book stores, book sales, etc. I have my own book database where I note the source so that if needed I can hopefully dig the book up again. So far there's only been one instance of someone asking me about a publication where it turned out to no longer be available in the store. I sure wish I had tons of spare time as a local book store lost their lease and will be converting to Internet sales.  If I had the time I'd volunteer to enter their specfict collection giving me a crack at a few thousand titles.. {{Marc Kupper}} 00:53, 10 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::: Verification seems to be forever. :-/ I could probably rely on my local library to have a book for a year or so, but I never visit there since I started earning enough to BUY enough books. Relying on local second-hand bookstores is far worse - I've had to buy duplicates and check later rather than check whether I've got it and go back next weekend, good stuff goes too fast. I can't even rely on the STORE being there now, e.g. http://www.patonbooks.co.uk/ :-( (OK, I've got everything I want from there already, but it's a shame they won't be there to get more). [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 14:27, 10 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::In the last two years Toronto has lost four major used book dealers and a couple of smaller ones. One other dealer with two locations opened a third much larger one in the downtown core. We hope he survives. The primary reason/excuse is the lack of walkin trade and the internet. But as a fellow dealer in the same trade as me who also deals in books put it "the book dealers of this city are among the worlds worst business men". Most of them pay nothing for the books and charge the moon, and if you bring twenty books to the counter and ask for a discount(even a token 10%) they would rather have you put them back on the shelf to collect even more dust. Although i've done well from the the closures, when they get desperate to clear the shelves i pickup a lot of cheap books. If they had of been more reasonable they could have gotten more money out of me earlier :-)[[User:Kraang|Kraang]] 18:54, 10 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== British pricing from pre-decimal conversion ==
 
−
 
 
−
I've started verifying publications listed by Donald Tuck in his encyclopedia, and using the book to update or add missing information.  Most British publications show prices such as 3/6 or 18/-.  Should I list these exactly as shown or should we add a pound/shilling symbol? The prices on covers that I've seen don't have any symbols [http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/haloofflies/aickmandark.gif like this one]. [[User:Mhhutchins|Mhhutchins]] 16:06, 20 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: For pre-decimal, I wouldn't add a "£" symbol unless it was actually present on the publication, but I've been happy to regularise the shillings with the "/" between shillings and pence, and indicate 0 pence with a "-", as per current help. There's a special value "21s" that I'd change to "21/-" even though it's over one pound - that's "a guinea" and has special connotations. The few times I've seen prices higher than that the common format seems to go back to "£X Ys (Zd)" - never a slash between pounds and shillings. But we surely don't have many of those? Those would be very special editions. As would anything in the "X guineas" league. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 18:06, 20 Jul 2007 (CDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Collections of art ==
 
−
 
 
−
Today I entered my two Frank Kelly Freas collections: [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?FRNKKLLFRS1978 Frank Kelly Freas: The Art of Science Fiction] and [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?SPRTSTRXBQ1984 A Separate Star].  I pretty much made up the rules as I entered, since I don't think this is covered in the Help pages (but then again, I've yet to figure out how to search the Help pages).  I only indexed the full-page works, and titled them, e.g.: "Cover: Astounding Science Fiction, November 1957" for magazine covers, and "Cover: From This Day Forward (by John Brunner)" for book covers.  I could not link these with the original records because then I'd be forced to choose either COVERART or INTERIORART.  And in the case of these collections, all of the work is INTERIORART.  Any suggestions or ideas about how to handle this?  Or should I just not worry about the records being merged?  Thanks. [[User:Mhhutchins|Mhhutchins]] 21:24, 30 Dec 2007 (CST)
 
−
:Looks great to me. I came aware of the potential nightmares of merging artwork when going through the run of '''Fantastic'''. I had the reproduced pieces of artwork in hand but still knew it would be a disaster to attempt it at this time.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 15:05, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)
 
−
 
 
−
:: Looks good! I didn't go into that much effort on my Josh Kirby and Paul Kidby collections. Maybe later. One thing you might want to add - the cover of that first collection is also the cover of [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?BKTG22032 Martians, Go Home!]. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 15:51, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)
 
−
 
 
−
::: It strikes me that it is dead easy (via SQL) to generate a page of all the artwork we have links to for a given Cover Artist: e.g. I knocked up [http://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Author:Paul_Kidby this page as an example] (even that is just a subset to keep it loadable). I think 1) Someone needs to teach me how to resize offsite URLS to thumbnail size (feel free to do it there if anyone already knows, then tell me how here) and 2) we all need to decide when we want such pages, if we ever actually do. I know some nice publication series that would look good presented that way, for instance. But it is heavy on the bandwidth, so maybe we only want temporary pages for identifying common covers for naming purposes or suchlike? [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:13, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: [http://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Author:Keith_Scaife This would be an example] of a short Publication Series, by Cover Artist. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:59, 31 Dec 2007 (CST)
 
−
 
 
−
== People credited by initials ==
 
−
 
 
−
[[User:AndyHat]] has a magazine where the editors are credited at the head/title of columns, reviews, etc. by their initials, STJ and JMH.  The magazine also discloses the full names, {{a|S._T._Joshi}} and {{a|Jack_M._Haringa}}, in the masthead and at the end of columns/reviews.
 
−
 
 
−
[[Template:AuthorFields:CanonicalName]], [[Template:TitleFields:Author]] and [[Template:PublicationFields:Author]] are silent on the use of initials and if they would be entered as STJ or if they should be regularized to "S. T. J." 
 
−
 
 
−
A scan for existing initial-only names shows that opinion is split with 37 record using XXX and and 29 with X.X.X.:
 
−
* {{a|EGG}}, {{a|GAK}}, {{a|jlg}}, {{a|UPI}}, {{a|LAF}}, {{a|PEI}}, {{a|SMS}}, {{a|Jmg}}, {{a|VIZ}}, {{a|Sqp}}, {{a|JTK}}, {{a|RPM}}, {{a|RWL}}, {{a|LTS}}, {{a|Bjo}}, {{a|xxx}}, {{a|GSM}}, {{a|JCB}}, {{a|84}}, {{a|BB}}, {{a|GD}}, {{a|HW}}, {{a|JB}}, {{a|JW}}, {{a|KR}}, {{a|MH}}, {{a|SF}}, {{a|SK}}, {{a|Tk}}, {{a|XX}}, {{a|X}}, {{a|B}}, {{a|Y}}, {{a|N}}, {{a|A}}, {{a|i}}, {{a|S}}
 
−
 
 
−
* {{a|A._F._S.}}, {{a|A._K._H.}}, {{a|S._M._S.}}, {{a|P._G._M.}}, {{a|E._D._B.}}, {{a|S._W._C.}}, {{a|H._d._R.}}, {{a|D._L._W.}}, {{a|H._S._S.}}, {{a|D._R._B.}}, {{a|D._A._W.}}, {{a|C._M._W.}}, {{a|B._L._C.}}, {{a|S._H._M.}}, {{a|A._E.}}, {{a|K._K.}}, {{a|J._K.}}, {{a|A._S.}}, {{a|M._C.}}, {{a|D._W.}}, {{a|L._S.}}, {{a|N._W.}}, {{a|V._R.}}, {{a|J._B.}}, {{a|N._R.}}, {{a|C._M.}}, {{a|W._R.}}, {{a|M._N.}}, {{a|W._C.}}
 
−
 
 
−
FWIW - The help is silent on middle initials and if you would enter Robert A. Heinlein or Robert A Heinlein though the example show the use of a period and do state that they should not be kerned; Use "H. P. Lovecraft", not "H.P. Lovecraft".  I suspect the period should be mentioned as 7190 author records use middle initials with periods but 73 don't. <span style="border: 1px solid #f0f; border-bottom: none; padding: 0 2px">[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc&nbsp;Kupper]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]])</span> 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:I think the developing standard has been to use the actual name rather than the initials when the identity of the author is obvious. In the case of editors their name will be on the masthead. In the case of artists more flexibility is required and determination of the artist may be dependent upon editor knowledge. As far as the periods go - not using a period is sometimes an author idiosyncrasy - in the above example Bjo (actually more of a contraction for Betty Jo) is a primary example of initials that have actually become a name. People who sign with initials usually are consistent in their use. I would say "What you see is what you enter" still applies. None of the no initial people above seem to be in the initial list.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:: Some of the links seem to go to publishers we are not fond of (e.g. Viz). Sorting out Publishers misused in author/artist credits looks good to me. Having said that, I know I've met an artist called "SMS" on SF-related works and convention-membership listings that MAY be the one we have here. If he wants to be called that, fine by me, I won't demand regularisation. Checking how he signed my copy of whatever-zine-it-was is low priority though unless people point me to actual art rather than credits of such. "Smuss" was a good guy to chat with over a beer or several though. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 23:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::I always push for adherence to the rules of English usage and orthography, so the middle initial should have a period. In the case of the signature of an artist or the initials used by an editor, these are often meant to be interpreted differently, i.e., as a graphic identifying mark, which takes it out of the realm of text. In such cases, the textual equivalent should be substituted, e.g., RAP > R. A. P. > Raymond A. Palmer.--[[User:Rkihara|Rkihara]] 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: We really could do with a library of such marks for artists, as we could also do with publisher logos. Such SHOULD take a lot less bandwidth than I have used on examples on my talkpage so far, for instance. Time to bug Al again about hosting images? [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::  Storage space for images may be doable as Al's thinking of keeping the Dreamhost account for its storage.  As a web/image server it should be fine. It did not work well as a MySQL server.
 
−
 
 
−
::::: Thank you for the feedback. When I get a chance I'll update the help to have middle initials regularized to have a period unless it's known that a particular author or artist consistently does not use the period. I'll also add a thing that if someone is only credited by their initials that we'd enter the credit as it was stated.  Both ABC and A. B. C. are valid. A name of the "A. B. C." format should normally not be kerned to "A.B.C." but there are some exceptions such as {{a|W.i.t.c.h.}} and {{a|N.A.S.A.}}. <span style="border: 1px solid #f0f; border-bottom: none; padding: 0 2px">[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc&nbsp;Kupper]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]])</span> 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
::::::If someone is credited only by initals in a particular publication, but the name is known and the initals are not the cannonical name, would we register the initals as a pesudonym? Personally I would like to argue for expanding the initals where the name is known (stated anywhere in the publication or unquestionably clear. The main reason for doing so, in my view, is the much higher likelyhood of collision. Or perhaps we could register a pesud in the form of INITALS (Name) for example "R. A. H. (Robert A. Heinlein)" or "JRRT (J. R. R. Tolkien)" and expand to that, to avoid collision. What do peiople think of this idea? -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::I'm for converting the initials when known, which is what I've been doing with the artwork, and occasionally with essays. As I've noted earlier, many of these are meant to be interpreted iconically, and not textually.--[[User:Rkihara|Rkihara]] 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::: If it's initials on artwork then I will add a note and expand.  For example I've done this a few times; "The frontispiece is signed 'JG' which is assumed to be Jack Gaughan."  If it's initials at the end of an introduction I'll usually expand and add a note. If a story or article is credited on the title page by initials then that gets entered into the db and you then variant-title to the canonical name. I believe collisions are ok as the use of initials is rare and ISFDB allows for collisions for both variant titles and pseudonyms. <span style="border: 1px solid #f0f; border-bottom: none; padding: 0 2px">[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc&nbsp;Kupper]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]])</span> 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::: Another example arrived today. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?213053 The Primal Urge] has a "B. W. A." signature for the Author's Note. All fine except that the Author is Brian Aldiss with no "W".  As there's a "W." in the abbreviation I've left it in the expansion too, but if this confuses I'm open to persuasion to change just that essay.  [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::::: Generally if the credit for an introduction, afterword, or author's note is in the signature I'll expand it for the credit entered into ISFDB and add a note rather than entering the ISFDB credit as signed.  I know I've done this for Aldiss works as he often signs off with a date and place too meaning I can document where/when he was at the time. <span style="border: 1px solid #f0f; border-bottom: none; padding: 0 2px">[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc&nbsp;Kupper]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]])</span> 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
== Archive ==
 
−
 
 
−
I just archived a number of older sections (about 33 sections) from the project page, because it was getting rather large. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 
  
 
== discussion talk page? ==
 
== discussion talk page? ==
Line 189: Line 17:
 
::: Thank you for the new link thing - yes, I started thread here because of the lack of a + link.  Actually, I don't like wiki-chat pages at all as I can't remember where there are pending discussions I'm interested in.  I can get into weeks-long periods where I don't have time for ISFDB meaning every few days I may check in but even then only do a very fast scan. I've tried the watch list, manually constructing lists of links to places where I had an ongoing conversation that I should follow up on, etc.  I'd MUCH rather use an e-mail interface as I can filter by subject, mass deleting threads I'm not interested in, and the read/unread indicator allows me to leave for a while and then know exactly what's needed to catch up. The wiki interface forces me to keep rereading stuff, parsing through history diffs, etc. <span style="border: 1px solid #f0f; border-bottom: none; padding: 0 2px">[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc&nbsp;Kupper]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]])</span> 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 
::: Thank you for the new link thing - yes, I started thread here because of the lack of a + link.  Actually, I don't like wiki-chat pages at all as I can't remember where there are pending discussions I'm interested in.  I can get into weeks-long periods where I don't have time for ISFDB meaning every few days I may check in but even then only do a very fast scan. I've tried the watch list, manually constructing lists of links to places where I had an ongoing conversation that I should follow up on, etc.  I'd MUCH rather use an e-mail interface as I can filter by subject, mass deleting threads I'm not interested in, and the read/unread indicator allows me to leave for a while and then know exactly what's needed to catch up. The wiki interface forces me to keep rereading stuff, parsing through history diffs, etc. <span style="border: 1px solid #f0f; border-bottom: none; padding: 0 2px">[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc&nbsp;Kupper]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]])</span> 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  
−
== ARC first printing, in or out? ==
+
== Recurring topics ==
 +
 
 +
<small> ''moved from the "Standards discussions" thread on the primary page.'' -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</small>
 +
 
 +
I am worried that this page is getting to be a drag on the overall project. By now, we all know our software's limitations and the way we would like it to behave if we had our druthers. We also know each active contributor's opinion about the way(s) to overcome these limitations using increasingly elaborate "hacks" and "kludges". Trying to follow these never-ending discussions can be quite tiresome and time consuming, yet I (and, judging by other editors' occasional appearances, others) feel compelled to keep track of them since we don't want to miss potentially far reaching changes to the ISFDB data entry rules which we will then have to live with.
 +
 
 +
This can be a Bad Thing (tm) because we all have a limited amount of "ISFDB time" and the time spent on trying to follow these discussions is the time that can't be spent on data entry, verification, data cleanup, moderation, scripting or any number of other useful activities. Besides, spending a big part of your "ISFDB time" on things that are "not fun" makes the whole experience frustrating and can drive editors away.
  
−
I know ISFDB standards don't allow advance reading copies, but I've come across a situation that might lead to a discussion of exceptions.  I have two copies of Kathe Koja's ''Bad Brains''. The [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?BDBRNSGLKM1992 first] is an ARC with a complete number line.  The [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?BABR1992 second] was the first publicly available copy (she signed my copy at a local bookstore signing shortly after publication), but it's number line drops the "1", indicating a second printing. Is this an unusual situation or was it a common practice for Dell or other paperback publishers? I have a copy of her first novel ''The Cipher'' and it's also a second printing. There's a [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?THCPHR1991 verified copy] that matches mine but the printing isn't stated. MALloyd hasn't responded to his talk page in quite awhile, so if anyone else has a copy can you check its printing.  Thanks. [[User:Mhhutchins|MHHutchins]] 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
+
Clearly, we don't want to stop all rules and standards discussions, but perhaps there is a way to create a sandbox (a sub-page or even sub-pages?) where certain well known and understood issues could be listed and debated? We could then agree not to escalate them to the main Rules page until we have a well defined proposal with agreed-upon lists of pros and cons. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 +
:That might be a good idea. I'll be happy to create the sub pages if others agree with the concept, and just what ought to be on the sub pages. Wikipedia used to have a section of the "Village Pump" for "Perennial discussions" ideas and proposals that kept being raised. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  
−
:I have never seen such a case, at least that I know of, but who knows what some publishers may have done. It does sound like a fair case for treating an ARC as the true first printing. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
+
::Funny, I thought that was the purpose of this page.  Things do sometimes go off on tangents, but what's to prevent that from happening on any newly-created page?  Lately, I tend to glance over certain discussions and decide whether it's worth my time to put in my two-cents-worth.  More often than not, I simply let it go. In the case of the Binary Stars discussion, I laid low until it involved a pub that I verified.  Until then, my time was better spent doing the tasks that Ahasuerus listed. I've even had time to clear off some items on my "To Do" list! [[User:Mhhutchins|MHHutchins]] 05:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  
−
:: On what grounds would you assume that the book-signing would definitely be for a first printing? I know I have a 3rd printing of Douglas Adams and John Lloyd's "Meaning of Liff" from what I believe to be the first signing-tour - I presumed it was so much more popular than expected that it needed reprinting multiple times during the tour. I can't imagine a tour being canceled for being too successful if they can reprint fast enough... [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
+
::: We all chose how much time to spend on things and if something seems unproductive we move on.  The recent threads on this page are likely hard to follow but also seem productive with the main pain for me being is I really don't like the wiki-talk format for longer threads.  For a short discussion that never branches it's fine but long discussions and/or branching discussions are a real pain, both in figuring out what's been added recently, its context, and when writing I loose my place in both the upper window and the edit window when they get too long.
  
−
:::True, some books have been reprinted 2-6 times within a few weeks of publication. Much depends on the pre-orders from the major retailers and distributors, so if there is a big spike in pre-orders right before publication I suppose it is even possible to run into a second printing on the first day of the book's availability. We are probably better off documenting the details of this case in the Notes field of the second printing's Publication record. [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
+
::: It seems on Wikipedia most of the threads end up being append-at-the-bottom only and it's rarer that stuff gets inserted in the middle.  I've never looked at some of the Wikipedia rules & policies threads and those may well be like what you see here. --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]|[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  
−
::::Yes, it's an assumption on my part that the book signing copies would be first printings, but I can't imagine that the second book by a relatively unknown author would have already gone into a second printing within weeks of publication (again, I admit, an assumption). All but one of the abebooks.com dealer that mentions first printings of this title also admit that it's the ARC. I've sent that bookseller a message to verify whether their first printing has the full color die-cut cover of the regular edition. There are more than a few listings that explicitly state 2nd printing. In the meantime, I've deleted the ARC and modified the note in the 2nd verified printing. [[User:Mhhutchins|MHHutchins]] 00:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
+
::: On the other hand - maybe separate pages for some threads would be good.  Right now there are eight edits to this page to what looks like three separate threads by five different people since I last checked the page meaning I'm stuck with some rescanning of text already read trying to figure out how and where replies were inserted. The real fault is that it's convenient to insert stuff in context but that also creates huge hassles for anyone that's only watching a page casually. --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]|[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 23:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 +
::::Trust me, Wikipedia policy discussion threads often make ours seem like a marvel of clarity, and a marvel of good fellowship and common sense, too. (The also tend to have far more active participants chiming in more often. 20 active participants in a single thread is far from unheard of.) Article talk discussion threads are usually simple "add at the bottom of a section" discussions, but wait till you get to something that impinges on middle east politics, or polish/german/russian arguments over who did what to whom 100 years ago and who is now an unbiased and reliable source on the subject. Arrgh! It is often a good idea in a long discussion to use the history tab and its diff feature to see just what has been added. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 23:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 +
:::::Separate pages for specific recurring topics might also have the advantage of being able to start with a list of links to archived discussion of the subject, and not need to be archived as rapidly as the main Rules and Standards page. They could also have subsections where the arguments for particular points of view are laid out fully and need not be restated over and over.
 +
:::::But it is just a matter of convention and organization. We can do it however we choos. Strictly speaking, this thread really ought to be on the talk page, as it is about how to organize this page, not about the bibliographic standards themselves. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  
−
:::::And after doing all that I checked Locus1:
+
:::::: I just spooled though the diffs.  I found that long responses, such as Bill Longley's are harder to follow in diff form but it works great when someone injects a one or two sentence response.  One annoyance is when in diff form it's not easy to jump to display form other than copy/paste some of the new text into the search buffer, click on the right arrow thing on the page that takes me to the thread section and search for the new text. That though seems to give me a version of the page that does not include follow-up edits. --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]|[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  
−
:::::'''Bad Brains (Dell Abyss 0-440-21114-X, Apr ’92 [Mar ’92], $4.99, 367pp, pb) Horror novel of an artist whose head injury exposes him to a strange and terrifying world lurking at the edge of human consciousness. Highly recommended (SW). Despite the copyright page denoting this as a second printing, this is actually the first after a large advance proof edition.'''
+
== Page archived ==
  
−
::::: Guess I should have stuck with my instincts. [[User:Mhhutchins|MHHutchins]] 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
+
As the page was getting so unwieldy I started [[Rules and standards discussions/Archive/Archive06]]. As we don't have a '''Resolved''' indicator it was difficult to tell which items are "open." Rather than staring at each one and deciding I archived everything up to early July and also checked that none of the archived items have August 2009 edits. --[[User:Marc Kupper|Marc Kupper]]|[[User talk:Marc Kupper|talk]] 08:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  
−
::::::Good catch! I don't think I have ever seen an ARC counted as an official first printing, but the publishing world is nothing if not weird :) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
+
==Archive 07 created==
 +
I archived the July and august 2009 entries because the main page was much too large. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:10, 30 December 2014

This is the talk page for Rules and standards discussions. It is intended to be used to discuss what is happning on that page, how to format items, archiving, etc. Substantive discussions go on the page itself.

Archive

  • I just archived a number of older sections (about 33 sections) from the project page, because it was getting rather large. -DES Talk 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I just archived 45 sectiosn from the main discussion page, and 12 substantive discussion sections the formerly lived on this talk page. I am also going to move the two most recent discussion sections 9threads) from this talk page to the current discussion page, where they will eventually join the next archive. -DES Talk 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

discussion talk page?

Is there intended to be a systematic distinction between the contents of the Rules and standards discussions page and the Rules and standards discussions talk page? Does anyone but me find it confusing to have these two pages being used for (AFAICS) the same thing? -- Dave (davecat) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're here (mostly) because of the "+" button. That's it. BLongley 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I've added a link with the equivalent function. I think. I'd add the tab if I knew how. -- Dave (davecat) 20:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (I'm trusting that if there was a good reason not to have such a tab on that page, someone will just remove my addition. I just can't think of one off hand. Dave (davecat) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC))
Thank you for the new link thing - yes, I started thread here because of the lack of a + link. Actually, I don't like wiki-chat pages at all as I can't remember where there are pending discussions I'm interested in. I can get into weeks-long periods where I don't have time for ISFDB meaning every few days I may check in but even then only do a very fast scan. I've tried the watch list, manually constructing lists of links to places where I had an ongoing conversation that I should follow up on, etc. I'd MUCH rather use an e-mail interface as I can filter by subject, mass deleting threads I'm not interested in, and the read/unread indicator allows me to leave for a while and then know exactly what's needed to catch up. The wiki interface forces me to keep rereading stuff, parsing through history diffs, etc. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Recurring topics

moved from the "Standards discussions" thread on the primary page. -DES Talk 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am worried that this page is getting to be a drag on the overall project. By now, we all know our software's limitations and the way we would like it to behave if we had our druthers. We also know each active contributor's opinion about the way(s) to overcome these limitations using increasingly elaborate "hacks" and "kludges". Trying to follow these never-ending discussions can be quite tiresome and time consuming, yet I (and, judging by other editors' occasional appearances, others) feel compelled to keep track of them since we don't want to miss potentially far reaching changes to the ISFDB data entry rules which we will then have to live with.

This can be a Bad Thing (tm) because we all have a limited amount of "ISFDB time" and the time spent on trying to follow these discussions is the time that can't be spent on data entry, verification, data cleanup, moderation, scripting or any number of other useful activities. Besides, spending a big part of your "ISFDB time" on things that are "not fun" makes the whole experience frustrating and can drive editors away.

Clearly, we don't want to stop all rules and standards discussions, but perhaps there is a way to create a sandbox (a sub-page or even sub-pages?) where certain well known and understood issues could be listed and debated? We could then agree not to escalate them to the main Rules page until we have a well defined proposal with agreed-upon lists of pros and cons. Ahasuerus 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. I'll be happy to create the sub pages if others agree with the concept, and just what ought to be on the sub pages. Wikipedia used to have a section of the "Village Pump" for "Perennial discussions" ideas and proposals that kept being raised. -DES Talk 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I thought that was the purpose of this page. Things do sometimes go off on tangents, but what's to prevent that from happening on any newly-created page? Lately, I tend to glance over certain discussions and decide whether it's worth my time to put in my two-cents-worth. More often than not, I simply let it go. In the case of the Binary Stars discussion, I laid low until it involved a pub that I verified. Until then, my time was better spent doing the tasks that Ahasuerus listed. I've even had time to clear off some items on my "To Do" list! MHHutchins 05:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
We all chose how much time to spend on things and if something seems unproductive we move on. The recent threads on this page are likely hard to follow but also seem productive with the main pain for me being is I really don't like the wiki-talk format for longer threads. For a short discussion that never branches it's fine but long discussions and/or branching discussions are a real pain, both in figuring out what's been added recently, its context, and when writing I loose my place in both the upper window and the edit window when they get too long.
It seems on Wikipedia most of the threads end up being append-at-the-bottom only and it's rarer that stuff gets inserted in the middle. I've never looked at some of the Wikipedia rules & policies threads and those may well be like what you see here. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand - maybe separate pages for some threads would be good. Right now there are eight edits to this page to what looks like three separate threads by five different people since I last checked the page meaning I'm stuck with some rescanning of text already read trying to figure out how and where replies were inserted. The real fault is that it's convenient to insert stuff in context but that also creates huge hassles for anyone that's only watching a page casually. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, Wikipedia policy discussion threads often make ours seem like a marvel of clarity, and a marvel of good fellowship and common sense, too. (The also tend to have far more active participants chiming in more often. 20 active participants in a single thread is far from unheard of.) Article talk discussion threads are usually simple "add at the bottom of a section" discussions, but wait till you get to something that impinges on middle east politics, or polish/german/russian arguments over who did what to whom 100 years ago and who is now an unbiased and reliable source on the subject. Arrgh! It is often a good idea in a long discussion to use the history tab and its diff feature to see just what has been added. -DES Talk 23:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Separate pages for specific recurring topics might also have the advantage of being able to start with a list of links to archived discussion of the subject, and not need to be archived as rapidly as the main Rules and Standards page. They could also have subsections where the arguments for particular points of view are laid out fully and need not be restated over and over.
But it is just a matter of convention and organization. We can do it however we choos. Strictly speaking, this thread really ought to be on the talk page, as it is about how to organize this page, not about the bibliographic standards themselves. -DES Talk 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I just spooled though the diffs. I found that long responses, such as Bill Longley's are harder to follow in diff form but it works great when someone injects a one or two sentence response. One annoyance is when in diff form it's not easy to jump to display form other than copy/paste some of the new text into the search buffer, click on the right arrow thing on the page that takes me to the thread section and search for the new text. That though seems to give me a version of the page that does not include follow-up edits. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Page archived

As the page was getting so unwieldy I started Rules and standards discussions/Archive/Archive06. As we don't have a Resolved indicator it was difficult to tell which items are "open." Rather than staring at each one and deciding I archived everything up to early July and also checked that none of the archived items have August 2009 edits. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive 07 created

I archived the July and august 2009 entries because the main page was much too large. -DES Talk 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://isfdb.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Rules_and_standards_discussions&oldid=373747"