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:
Article naming conventions:
Comma where part of the formal title, parenthesis only if it is not literally a part of the book's title.
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:
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:
Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second Edition (Note: edition follows a comma and is not italized)
Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second Edition (Note: all italicized, using a comma)
Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back (Second Edition) (Note: edition in parenthesis, not italized)
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)
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)." IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 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)IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 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.