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)
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 17: 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 ==
  
−
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)
+
<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 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)
+
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.
  
−
:: 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)
+
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.
  
−
:::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)
+
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)
  
−
::::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)
+
::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)
  
−
:::::And after doing all that I checked Locus1:
+
::: 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.
  
−
:::::'''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.'''
+
::: 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)
  
−
::::: Guess I should have stuck with my instincts. [[User:Mhhutchins|MHHutchins]] 00:17, 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)
  
−
::::::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)
+
:::::: 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)
  
−
== Letters to the Editor ==
+
== Page archived ==
  
−
Entry is currently defined as debatable but common usage has resulted in a de facto standard. I think it's fairly obvious that they should be included in fanzines and it does not seem to make sense to have a separate standard for fanzines and magazines. If we are beyond that debate? then we need a standard for entering them that will make it easy to find and group them. Proposed update to pub Help:
+
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)
  
−
Letters should be entered with the following format: Letter (publication name, publication date). [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?845910 Example]. If the letter has a title the editor has the option to append it by adding a colon and the text of the title to the letter entry. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?889987 Example]. The editor may add letters selectively. If all of the letters in a publication are added, a notation should be made in the publication notes. In order to group letters on an author's bibliography page they can be added to a series with the following format - Letters: Author Name. [http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?24601 Example].
+
==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)
−
Instead of the series format we might even want to use something as simple as "Letters" although that would get to be a very long series. This is a flexible standard which allows the editor a wide range of options. It also allows a subsequent editor to expand upon existing data.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 15:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:I seem to recall a convention somewhere that such letters should be entered '''only''' if the letter writer already had an ISFDB entry for non-letter works. I looked for the wiki page where I read this, but I can't find it. never the less, i propose the following standard for letters:
 
−
:#IN -- Letters published by a magazine or other publication that is IN on other grounds, which are signed by individuals that have an ISFDB author record for works other than letters.
 
−
:#OUT -- Letters signed by individuals that do not have an ISFDB entry for works other than letters.
 
−
:#OUT -- Any letters that are unsigned (except a collective entry for an entire letter column).
 
−
:#OUT -- Any letters published in a non-genre publication, or any publication whose contents would not otherwise be recorded in the ISFDB.
 
−
:I see no reason to record the individual writers of letters who are not otherwise significant. I could see an argument if a person who was '''very''' famous in another field wrote a letter that should be recorded, if say a Nobel-Prize winner or a Head of State had a letter published in an SF magazine, perhaps we should record that fact. But otherwise, known authors and artists only, i think. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 15:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
:I have no objection to your proposal for how letters should be formatted and organized, when included. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::What you were reading was another interminable discussion which came to no conclusion. What about fanzines?--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::I would apply the same rule, just an entry for "Letter column" unless an individual letter  writer also has records for fiction or art.
 
−
:::In fact, if I had been writing the fanzine rules, I would probably have said that we should only record fanzine contents for people with professionally published items on file. And the same for self-publications. But I guess that decision is already made. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::::I had been generally supportive of (and using) the de facto standard as articulated by DES and I think it worked well for a while, but lately I have run into a couple of issues with it. First, there are cases when a letter is signed by a person who is currently not in the database but who gets added later on, perhaps when we add some of the more obscure magazines. In cases like that (and I think I have run into them twice now) we have to go back and retroactively add a bunch of letters, which may not be easily identifiable after the fact. Second, what do we do when the letter writer's only Titles are locs ("letters of comment") in prozines and Essays in fanzines? As we continue cataloging fanzines, we are likely to start seeing more and more of these cases, which will make keeping track of who is "in" and who is "out" a major headache.
 
−
 
 
−
::::I am not entirely sure what to do about this messy area, but one thing that comes to mind is that it may be easier to create a new Title Type for letters than to try to keep them organized in Series.  Something to ask Al about, perhaps? [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::I do see your point -- people who are '''going''' to be in, but aren't yet in, are a problem. I would have chosen to reduce this problem by not cataloging anything by anyone who didn't have at least one non-letter publication in a pro or semi-pro zine. But i gather that the consensus is otherwise. I would say, if the person entering the data is reasonably sure that the letter writer will eventually be included for non-letter content, insert. I really think that entering every letter will seriously decrease the utility of contents displays in most cases, and complicate author searches by returning far too many false matches. Sooner than that, I would go with a '''more''' restrictive rule: '''No''' individual letters '''except''' from people with a significant body of '''professionally''' published SF art or fiction -- say at least two novels or 10 works of short fiction. Most people who would qualify under that rule are already in the DB, so decisions will be much easier. It would also make letters rare enough that a separate type becomes of little value, i suspect.-[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
:::::I saw a comment on a user's talk page that if any letters are done, all should be. If those are the choices, i would prefer none, including deleting ones already entered. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 04:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::I think all letters should be included if we start to enter them, since a letter column is like a round table discussion. They've had "flame wars" as long as there have been letter columns, practical jokes, and hoaxes (I can think of a few). Imagine trying to follow the progress of a flame war, when you can't easily find the responses, like listening to half of a debate. You might also miss the pseudonymous letters, which were written by well known authors.
 
−
 
 
−
::::::Part of the problem of dealing with letters is that we have no software support for it. If we could enter letters in the same manner as the book reviews, that would compartmentalize them. Especially if the "concise listing" tool was modified to expand or hide specific types of entries.--[[User:Rkihara|Rkihara]] 05:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::I think that if we enter all -- or anything close to all -- letters, we will have far too many entries in the Authors table, and someone searching for an actual author based on a partial name will get far too many hits, thus reducing the usefulness of the db significantly. Rather than this, I would much prefer no individual letters at all (and I'd be happy to help delete the ones already entered). If we added separate software support for letters, it would, IMO, have to include a separate letters_authors table, so that people whose only records were for letters were not returned on a basic author search. Also, there would need to be a display option to suppress letter-level detail in pubs. If, and '''only''' if, those changes were made, i could support entering all letters. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 05:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
:::::::Frankly the flame wars, jokes, and the like are of no great interest to me, and I think they are of less interest to most users. The only letters that seem to me worth recording are those in which a noted author (or artist) discusses his or her work, or the work of others, or those in which a person who was later to be a noted author makes an early appearance, which have historical interest. I would expect perhaps one individually noted letter a year from most monthly prozines. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 05:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::::I guess I wasn't clear. The flame wars are usually between author and reader, so if you just record the author, half of the dialog is missing. The hoaxes and jokes were usually perpetuated by authors/editors (think of Ben Franklin's "Dogood letters." From my work on Amazing, maybe 2-3 letters a month from pros. Then there are the "pro fans."--[[User:Rkihara|Rkihara]] 06:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::::P.S., I know of the flame wars, jokes, and hoaxes because they are showing up in histories of SF. They are definitely of historical interest.--06:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC) {{unsigned|Rkihara}}
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::::Ah, I had misunderstood a bit. I still think that these would clutter the author list excessively, particularly if you do the later mags where the vast majority of letters are simply comments on recently published stories by readers. (I had one or two of those published myself, in the early IASFM). I would wait until/unless we have software changes to exclude these from basic searches and displays. -[[User:DESiegel60|DES]] <sup>[[User talk:DESiegel60|Talk]]</sup> 06:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::::::I will be on the road for the next 24 hours, so I won't be able to comment at length, but I just wanted to point out that we have always had editors with slightly different ideas about the desired scope of the project. Some editors see the database as a research tool and/or tend to be inclusionists (notably Al) while others are more worried about making the database accessible to the average user. Some of these issues can be addressed programmatically by adding new fields or making the search algorithm smarter, e.g. by splitting the current "Title" search into "Titles (all)" and "Titles (fiction)" so that our fiction-oriented users could easily filter Reviews and Essays. There are other things that we could do, but I have to run. Unless Friday the 13th proves to be particularly unlucky, I should expand on these matters on Saturday :) [[User:Ahasuerus|Ahasuerus]] 07:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::::::The addition of fanzines to the mix is going to result in a huge number of names being added to the mix no matter what - so that argument is moot. Search and display issues are a secondary consideration - there is substantial room for improvement and the potential for other people to develop alternate methods using the Creative Commons data. Our rules for data acquisition should not be based upon current search and display limitations. Like any other data the editor has no obligation to enter any more data than they want but they should have the option to enter as much as they want.  I might also note that only a couple of people wanted Project Gutenberg entries and some were adamantly opposed but they are in there anyway.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 17:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::::::: I'm not too worried about the Project Gutenberg stuff if someone else deals with it, I'm just not going to for now. The Display problems are getting bad though and do need some work soon: I see Translator support is on the list, and I can see a good reason to separate artists from authors and reviewers and interviewers, and possibly from letter-writers in the future: and Editors (the two types entered here rather than working here) need clarification as well: but that's perfectly possible without destroying current data. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
(Unindent) I'm a bit worried about the proposed DELETION of letters, when I've already seen quite a lot of effort to get them included in certain circumstances. I propose a more "live and let live" policy - if somebody wants to add letters, let them, so long as they keep to the usual regularization rules for title and do the pseudonym set-ups. If people want to encourage entry of such for certain types of publication, that's fine too, but every editor should be able to say when that's more than they want to deal with, and the people wanting such entries can go do it themselves. The magazine editors seem quite happy to go into more detail than I would on a magazine, and if me just doing the SF contents doesn't help then they can ask me to leave them alone so they don't get confused by my verifications, or just accept that a verification by me doesn't mean the same as a verification by one of them and more work is required to bring it up to their standards. Similarly, I'm not asking people to find coverart images for books they've verified, or for details of every other price noted on it. I may ASK if the cover I found is right, or ask if the price is the main one or just the additional one added for their country, but there's no requirement to go do this additional work or even answer. But the more we add to the "desired data" list, the more relaxed I think we have to be about whether it's actually required before it's an acceptable entry or not: and when we start talking about DELETING data just because not everybody wants it in the pubs they're interested in, we really ARE going to start putting editors off. [[User:BLongley|BLongley]] 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
: I guess I'd tend toward the inclusionist end of things; I do think of ISFDB as a research tool.  But I'm very much with Bill on the live-&-let-live end of things, too.  It's good to suggest to an editor, particularly a new one, that we're interested in including something (artwork, book reviews, whatever, & maybe letters); I'm not ready to say we should be demanding these things, or taking a don't-bother-entering-unless-you'll-enter-it-all approach.  Less work for someone else later, as long as what ''is'' entered is up to standards. -- [[User:Davecat|Dave (davecat)]] 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
: Mike did the suggest-but-don't-demand thing very nicely in mentoring me, BTW. -- [[User:Davecat|Dave (davecat)]] 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
::On a personal practical level: for the magazines I have only been entering letters by authors whose names I recognize and have no intention in the near future of doing any differently. The fanzines are different. It seems almost pointless to me to do them if all the letters are not entered - although that should still be at the editor's discretion. A very large percentage of fanzine letter writers would very likely pass any tests concerning non-letter contributions - but we won't know that until all the fanzines ever published are entered. The chances of anyone in the near future actually entering all the letters from the prozines is actually quite small.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 19:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
(Unindent)From what I can gather the general consensus is that letters should be included although we should not encourage mass entry until there is some software support . I would suggest using the wording above but removing the section about placing them in a series in hopes that software support will be forthcoming at some future date.--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 
−
 
 
−
I have made some very cautious changes to Policy concerning letters. Letters are now [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:Policy#Rules_of_Acquisition "In With Reservations"]. There is also a section in [http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Screen:NewPub#Letters_to_the_Editor New Pub Help].--[[User:Swfritter|swfritter]] 17:30, 1 July 2008 (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"