Forum:CT:How to name publication editions

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:How to name publication editions

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.
This debate was restarted in a clearer format in this CT. --Eyrezer 01:07, 21 May 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. The current forms are:

Again, a standard would be nice, especially when both forms appear in a single sourcelist as frequently happens. It should probably also apply to sources like Star Wars Technical Journal (Volume One). --Eyrezer 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool book (First Edition)

Cool book, First Edition

  1. --Eyrezer 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No standard

I really feel there should be another voting option here: Go with what the name of the book is. There are some instances where something literally has the "Second Edition" or "Second Volume," etc. descriptor as part of its title, in which cases parentheses should not be used, and there are instances where a title not include the "Second Edition" or "Second Volume" bit, like GG3 as an example, so we use the parenthetical "(Second Edition)." If it's part of the title, no parentheses. If it's not part of the title, yes parentheses. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • So to clarify, you'd keep Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, Second Edition where it is, since the 2nd ed. is on the cover and part of the name, but move the "first edition" one to Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game (First Edition) as the 1st ed was not a part of the original name? Or move the 1st ed. to simply Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game? (Ignoring for the moment where that link currently goes to) --Eyrezer 06:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it may be best for you to respond to my comment below. I may be striking this vote depending on what you say. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourth option

  1. I think Eyrezer might have logged off following our exchange, so, if it's all right with him, I've created an option for what I believe to be the best way to go about this. I don't think this case is as straightforward as it's being presented here. I do believe it's best to present an item in a source list as, for ex, "Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes Back, Second Edition" (Note that "Second Edition" is not italicized), without the use of parentheses, and I think this is something (for those of us interested in this level of detail) we pretty much seem to do universally by default. However, I do believe it is best to use parentheses in the naming of an article, per my stricken comments above: use parentheses when appropriate, as in when "Second Edition" is not literally a part of the book's title. Brackets, alternatively, should never be used. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I know there are different referencing systems out there. I've only used the Chicago system, which doesn't use the brackets. If there are other options, please suggest. --Eyrezer 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I may have misinterpreted the function of this CT. Is this for the purpose of naming articles or for an item's presentation in source lists? Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • How about Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition)? MauserComlink 06:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • To Tope: Potentially both. Ideally, I'd like to have a uniform look in the source lists. At the moment there is also another variation with the titles using brackets, in that some italicise the whole title, whereas others leave the brackets unitalicised. If we decide to keep the brackets in some or all cases, hopefully we can also have standardisation on that.
      • Would it be alright with you if I were to create a new voting option? Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • To Mauser: Yes, I would include those types of books in whatever decision is made here. --Eyrezer 06:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)