Bibliographic standard for Sfeditors wiki|
I would be tempted to go look in my copy of the SF Encyclopedia to see what Clute does, but it is in California and I'm not.
However, "don't reinvent the wheel" seems like good advice, because if you do then partisans of all of the available standards will attack you. At least if you pick a standard you'll have some support.
|Date:||February 28th, 2008 02:17 am (UTC)|| |
from Kathryn Cramer
I've a had a serious whack at adding material to the WIki.
My feeling is that most editors with significant careers are going to need separate pages for the lists of books they edited. Formatting needs to take that into consideration.
To some extent, this won't be a problem because data is hard to come by, but think for example about the fact hat in either 1977 or 1978, David Hartwell was editor of over 250 titles. (Many were reprint, but still).
Even my own list of anthologies published is a bit unwieldy once all the books are there.
|Date:||February 28th, 2008 12:16 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: from Kathryn Cramer
Yeah, I don't mind extra length in the page but it also makes the table of contents quite massive, so that may be true. We just need to make it really obvious if and when we split off a separate page.
And btw, thank you for all your contributions!