Anne (netmouse) wrote,
Anne
netmouse

Bibliographic standard for Sfeditors wiki

I've noticed quite a few editors tend to post their work listings on SF Editors in reverse order, like one might on a resume. I myself tend toward the chronological standard most used in wikipedia. That might be my history degree speaking. I've also see listings with title, author, author --title, etc. many different ways to present this information. Just for kicks, I'd like to know how other people would format entries (feel free to browse SFeditors to get a feel for variation. (Check recent changes to find ones I haven't resorted yet.)

(as an aside, I've already suggested in the template that publisher only be listed where the editor is freelance or the title is not by their primary publisher. for the moment anyway, that keeps listings cleaner and makes it easier for people to add information quickly.)

Poll #1145257 Bibliographic standards

Which order should works be listed in on SF Editors (by year)

Most recent at the top, like a resume
8(66.7%)
Chronologically down: most recent at the bottom
4(33.3%)

How should listings of books edited be formated?

author, title -- publisher
7(63.6%)
title, by author (publisher)
4(36.4%)
author - title
0(0.0%)
some other way (please leave a comment)
0(0.0%)

How should collections or anthologies be identified?

"edited by ____" is sufficient
7(58.3%)
label them as "an anthology" or somesuch somewhere
5(41.7%)
don't worry about it.
0(0.0%)
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 9 comments