Tolkien Gateway

User talk:Ederchil/Sandbox

Just a couple of things:

  • For THOME, do we really need to include the full title in the names? The editions of the books I have, in fact, are labelled primarily as Sauron Defeated, e.g.
  • Also, for THOME, aren't the editions pretty universal? We could use page references? In fact, could we use page references for everything except TLOTR, Hobbit, UT, and Silm?
  • A semi-colon does look a bit odd when you then have the book title separated from the editors with an ordinary comma. (And could we go for "(ed.)" and "(eds.)" just to save a bit of space?)
  • For chapters, should we included chapter number as well as title? And are we putting chapter titles in quotation marks?

Sorry to seem 'pernickety'; I'm just thinking out-loud really and looking for someone to bounce my thoughts on. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just some reactions:
  • I think I agree, but for the sake of not confusing newbies, shouldn't we tell them it is tHoMe?
  • True. I have the gold "History of tLotR" edition of Treason of Isengard, and the numbers match all the blacks. I'm not sure on first editions though (but the black paperbacks seem to be the most popular).
  • I was trying to create something of a boundary. If it lists three names, with "(editors)" after the last one, how do you know it's two or three editors? Agree with abbreviation, though.
  • I'm neutral on the first, but lean to agreeance on the second.
Talk pages are made for pernickety people, and so was my list. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • We could just put THOME: Sauron Defeated? I'm not sure if many newbies know about the existence of THOME, anyway.
  • Yeah, mine are all black paperbacks. They're yummy. I think we would be surprised at how many editions (at least those printed in the last decade) do actually match up.
  • That's a fair point. Perhaps we should semi-colonate the division between authors and the book title?
  • I just thought chapter titles might bring some uniformity with the way you referenced Appendix A in your example. We don't have to make a big deal out of it, maybe just 'II: "The Shadow of the Past"'.--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 13:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a few points

  • I'm waiting for more feedback (*hint*, *hint*) before I actually change anything. Maybe I should put some sort of notification on the Community Portal.
  • In case of two authors (e.g. Hammond & Scull) should they be called "Hammond, Scull" or "Hammond and Scull". Also, should we put them in alphabetical order, or in "credits" order?
  • In reaction to Mith's collection, should we credit Donald Swann on The Road Goes Ever On (book) as "composer", or as an author (it was made in conjunbction, not seperately, wasn't it?)
  • Also, how should artists be credited?
  • A completely different thing: Should we include some sort of handy "guide" at book articles, hidden at the top of the article like this: <!--Reference usage note: [[J.R.R. Tolkien]], ''[[The Fellowship of the Ring]]'', [[Strider (chapter)|Strider]]--> ?
  • If I could give even more feedback, the reason I listed Donald Swann as a composer (and I found my collection very useful for highlighting book editions and missing books etc.) is that on the front cover of my edition (which is the same as the thumbnail) it says, "Music by Donald Swann", and that is also how it is stated on the first page, so I copied how I perceived he was being credited.
  • Also, with regards to crediting artists, I only did it when they were on the cover or title page. Similarly (although I accept this isn't necessary a gospel from which we should take advice) Amazon list artists too.
  • I listed all authors in credit order, with the exception of JRRT who go preference above all others. (Sensible books tend to just be alphabetical anyway).--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)