Talk:Science fiction: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Duplication? Isn't that cross-referencing?: a modest suggestion) |
imported>Aleta Curry (→Duplication? Isn't that cross-referencing?: And here we go with the catalogues, not that I understand them, but....) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Dunno if any of this makes sense.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT) | Dunno if any of this makes sense.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
::*Makes a good deal of sense. I'm fine with listing authors/pioneers/originators with a list of their works, seminal or otherwise. | |||
::*Did we discuss this before? And would I remember where it was if we did? ''Hahahahahahahahahahaha'' | |||
::*I'm not sure, once we start organising into anything other than just a straight list with definitions, doesn't that put us into catalogues rather than related pages? | |||
:::[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:04, 18 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 18:04, 18 May 2008
Duplication? Isn't that cross-referencing?
Okay, Hayford, not sure I take your point in removing some author's works from the "literature" list in Related Articles.
If I follow you, "Frankenstein", e.g. is to be removed because "Mary Shelley" is listed under "Authors"?
But surely, if that were the case, we would have to decide to have either a literature list or an author's list?
I don't think that the list of Literature will contain more than one--maybe two?--of any particular person's work, but I do think it should exist for those larger-than-life works, wherein a person might not necessarily know who wrote it, or remember the exact title, etc. etc.
By the same token, if there is not to be this cross-referencing, why do we need film, tv or radio lists? George Lucas AND Star Wars?
Maybe you have another way of looking at this?
Aleta Curry 18:35, 18 May 2008 (CDT)
- Well, I'm not the person who started this page -- I've made a couple of contributions to it, and have removed a couple of items, but it isn't something that interests me greatly. Didn't we discuss this before, somewhere? If so, I don't think we came to any conclusions about it. But, off the top of my head, if we're going to have Authors, with, say, Chulz Voine, as Isaac Asimov thought he was called when he (Isaac) was a boy in Brooklyn, on one list, then I think it would make more sense to have:
- Jules Verne
- 20,000 Leagues Under
- Voyage to the Center
- A Trip to the Moon
- Etc. etc.
rather than just his name up at the top of the page, *then*, somewhere far below, a list of books with *no* mention of who wrote them. Ditto for the other categories. If we have George Lucas, why not list Star Wars under his name rather than separately?
Of course, if you want to be a completist, you could also cross reference all of the above stuff the *other* way around *also*, so that everything is listed twice....
Dunno if any of this makes sense.... Hayford Peirce 18:56, 18 May 2008 (CDT)
- Makes a good deal of sense. I'm fine with listing authors/pioneers/originators with a list of their works, seminal or otherwise.
- Did we discuss this before? And would I remember where it was if we did? Hahahahahahahahahahaha
- I'm not sure, once we start organising into anything other than just a straight list with definitions, doesn't that put us into catalogues rather than related pages?
- Aleta Curry 19:04, 18 May 2008 (CDT)