This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was:

1. Article naming conventions:

   Comma where part of the formal title, parenthesis only if it is not literally a part of the book's title.

2. How to treat these books in source lists:

   Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second Edition (Note: edition follows a comma and is not italicized) —Xwing328^(Talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Following Pranay Sobusk's example, there is another naming inconsistency on the site: how to deal with first and second editions of books. I initally raised this in another CT, but as Tope rightly pointed out, I conflated two separate issues in a rather messy fashion. Ok, so two issues are raised by how second editions/revised editions:

1. Where they are placed in the namespace
2. How they are handled in source lists

On the first issue, we currently have some publications using parenthesis in their namespace, such as Galaxy Guide 1: A New Hope (First Edition), while others simply use a comma, such as Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, First Edition. There are potentially three ways of dealing with this:

1. Always use parenthesis
2. Always use comma
3. Comma where part of the formal title, parenthesis only if it is not literally a part of the book's title

It is my feeling that our current approach has been arbitrary, so standarization via any of these options will be an improvement.

On the second point, how to treat these books in source lists, at the moment some appear with parenthesis and others with the comma. Additionally, some have the whole link italicized, others only the first part of the title and not the edition qualifier. Between these two factors, source lists have become rather untidy. On this I feel it is more important have a uniform policy than it is with regard to the namespace, as in source lists these will appear alongside each other.

Here are three options. The best option, I think, is the first, which was laid out by Tope on the old CT:

1. Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second Edition (Note: edition follows a comma and is not italized)
2. Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second Edition (Note: all italicized, using a comma)
3. Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back (Second Edition) (Note: edition in parenthesis, not italized)

Vote 1: NamespaceEdit

Always parenthesisEdit

Always commaEdit

1. I prefer this one for consistency, otherwise you end up with different styles for the two editions of the same book. Ie, a 2nd ed. could be at Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, Second Edition, since the 2nd ed. is part of the name, but the 1st ed. would be at Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game (First Edition) as the 1st ed was not a part of the original name, and there is a different article at already at Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game. --Eyrezer 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Eyrezer. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comma where it is part of the formal title, parenthesis only if it is not literally a part of the book's titleEdit

1. Makes the most sense to me. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Mauser^Comlink 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Typically how we've always done it. A nice reinforcement of this for detailed consistency and accuracy. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
5. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 22:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 23:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Grunny ^(Talk) 04:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Definitely. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 07:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote 2: SourcelistsEdit

Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second EditionEdit

1. Makes the most sense to me. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. This is how we've typically always done it (for those interested enough in this level of detail). "Second Edition" is not literally part of the title, so it should not be italicized. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
3. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
4. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Graestan^(Talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
7. --Eyrezer 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 23:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Grunny ^(Talk) 04:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Mecenarylord^{Enter if you dare} 00:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Jinzler 20:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Haven't decided on vote #1 yet... —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second EditionEdit

1. Mauser^Comlink 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back (Second Edition)Edit

1. This is the scientific way to source (based on popular APA style). The commas are used for literary sourcing. See comments. IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 22:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
2. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 07:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

So I asked a librarian! As you might know, scientific papers usually use a citation style similar to the American Psychological Association's, which would be: (3rd ed.)

Literary papers usually put it as: , Third edition

I have never seen anyone use both options (depending on whether or not it shows up in the title proper). However, I like this option the best personally (but it is probably the most grammatically incorrect). I did, however, use an automatic bibliography software, where I cut and pasted, "Brown's Encyclopedia: Third Edition" from amazon (as it appears on cover and title page). When using APA (scientific) style I got: "Brown's Encyclopedia: Third Edition (3rd edition)." IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the Literary style, I got: "Brown's Encyclopedia: Third Edition, third edition." Now I think both of these are repetitive an probable a glitch in the formatting software, but it is another (albeit stupid) option for formatting titles with specific editions in the title proper.

• With respect to sourcing, I think we should go with APA (scientific) style and use Parentheses. Since this is an in-universe encyclopedia concerning mostly scientific or historical things (species, technology, political events, and wars) we should be scientific (even though this info comes from out of universe literature)IthinkIwannaLeia^WaddaUthink? 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.