Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography edit

Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of works by Ursula Le Guin, an author whose fiction I have done considerable work on. I am confident that it is comprehensive, and uses the best sources available. This is, however, my first foray into FLC; I'm sure there are formatting and style points I could use help with, and I would appreciate patience in this respect. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Courcelles: I'm willing to give it a shot. The question to be decided, should we use a table, is the number of columns/amount of complexity in a table versus the number of tables overall. I'm not keen on reformatting it many times, so here is how the Earthsea section would look, if I tried to make the entire fiction section a table. Is this what you're looking for? How could it be improved? When we're happy with formatting for this one, I'll apply that format to the rest of the entries. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Courcelles: Since you've been active, I just want to make sure you've seen this. If the table formatting here is okay, I'll apply it through the page; otherwise, let's try to find a better option. Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOrry, just plum missed this on my watchlist and in a flood of pings. I'd move "sources" to the end and rename it something like "footnotes" to distinguish it form "sources" or "references" in a literary sense as to sources or references in the works... Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Courcelles: No worries. I've tried out your suggestions; how does it look here? I'm honestly still a bit concerned that the table overall is aesthetically not pleasing, but if that's convention I'm willing to roll with it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not particularly aesthetically pleasing, but it brings in sortability. IMO, we should wait for another reviewer to chime in. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. As I said, I'm a FL newbie, so I'm willing to set aside my formatting preferences. Vanamonde (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better formatted as a series of sortable tables as well. Sorry, I know that makes extra work... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: I'm quite willing to put in the work, but I'd rather not do it multiple times; so, what do you think of the formatting of the Earthsea section [here? If we can come to a consensus on that, I'll implement it through the article. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles and The Rambling Man: Apologies for my tardiness. The entire page is now in the suggested format. Vanamonde (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles and The Rambling Man: Apologies for a second ping, just a quick reminder...Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One last niggle, the tables need row and column spans to satisfy MOS:ACCESS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for examples. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles: Do you mean that all entries for a certain year should be have a single "year" entry, as in the example? I'm uncertain if that's going to work well here; first, because we have month of publication for some entries and not others; second, because the vast majority of sources sort Le Guin's works as I had done in the non-table version of this list; as in, first by series/setting, then by format, and only then by chronology. I'm willing to be persuaded though. Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not what I mkeant at all, what I meant is much simpler, see my two edits; I did the first three for you as explanation. Courcelles (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles: Ah I see. Is this to make the entire row sort together? Syntax isn't my strong suite...done, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks right, it's actually for screen readers that we use the row scopes, nothing to do with sorting. Courcelles (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "and standalone novels and short stories" too many run-ons here.
    Done
  • "She was primarily known for her works of speculative fiction." I would revise this and make the first sentence say "known primarily from her works of speculative fiction, but also for....."
    Well...there's a tiny bit of controversy over this, because some scholars, and Le Guin herself, resent her being pigeonholed as a Sci-Fi-Fantasy author. Hence this construction.
  • "critics such as" more than one? Could you perhaps name another?
    I could, but after re-reading I decided to flesh that out and reorganize a little bit.
    There's several scholars who say the same or equivalent things, but none of them are notable in their own right, and
  • "notable other works" in what sense "notable"?
    In retrospect, this isn't required.
    After further reflection, modified the wording.
  • Title column sorts by punctuation (i.e. all titles with " in them sort before all titles without " in them).
    Should be fixed.
  • I've never heard of chapbook, it's not mentioned in the lead but appears in the table frequently.
    Added and linked in lead.
  • Time of first publication column doesn't sort correctly.
    Fixed (almost...any ideas on how best to deal with months+years would be welcome).
    Now fixed completely.
  • "First edition publisher" should be "First edition publisher/publication".
    True. Done.
  • ISBN numbers are preferred with hyphens.
    I looked into this. It looks like hyphenation doesn't work the same way for all ISBNs, and for a large number of them, there's no hyphenation in the source. These work, and are standardized; surely its preferable to have this than partial hyphenation?
    Yeah, there's no major issue. I use the guidance at WP:ISBN and also the ISBN converter tool at ISBN.org to get the latest and greatest formats. It's not going to stand in my way of support, but something to perhaps consider in future efforts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sortable tables need linked items to be linked on every instance as the table can be reordered and there's no guarantee that the linked item will appear first.
    Done, I believe

That's a first run. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed some points; I'll get to work on the others. Vanamonde (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I'm (almost) done with your comments, perhaps you could take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I'm not forced into retirement overnight, I'll take another look tomorrow morning and let you know where I stand. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Glad to see you're still around; wondering if you've had a chance to have another look at this. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 yup, I'm a Jedi, plain and simple. I'll try to get back here either very shortly (I'm waiting to fly) or later this evening once I've got the kids to bed. Sorry for the delay, but once a marked man, always a marked man. Sorry for the delay. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Don't mean to be a bother, but one last ping. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, still on my list but just too busy for detailed stuff at the moment, been travelling extensively and haven't really had a chance to sort my life out. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just making sure it wasn't forgotten. Vanamonde (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments

  • Why "e-Book" when our article is either "e-book" or "eBook"?
    No reason: gone with "eBook".
  • "Simon and Schuster " is typically "Simon & Schuster".
    Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRM: all done. Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm satisfied this meets the FL criteria. 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    Cheers, Courcelles. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although given that she was American should the reference to an upcoming publication in "autumn 2018" not read "fall 2018"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've changed it to read "late 2018", which is accurate but neutral vis-a-vis ENGVAR. Vanamonde (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Mostly picky reference-related stuff from me.
  • From the second paragraph, is "Science Fiction" normally capitalized in this context?
    No. Fixed.
  • Non-fiction table: Is the comma correct after the From Elfland to Poughkeepsie entry?
    No, that's a typo; good catch
  • Given that we don't have any notes in this article, you could just remove the note subsection and change the section title to just References.
  • Fixed. It used to have notes, then it became a table, and I forgot.
  • You'll dislike me for this one, but since this is an American subject we should probably be using MDY date formatting instead of the current DMY style, which is often used for international subjects.
    Ugh. Both the internationalist and the scientist in me hate MDY, but okay.
  • In ref 12, Locus magazine should be italicized since that is a print publication.
    Done.
  • Refs 38 and 39 have the ends of their page ranges missing.
    Done
  • Some of the refs have the author's first name at the start, while most have the last name first. These should be made consistent throughout the cites. My personal suggestion is to change them all to have the last name in front, if only because you would only have to edit 4 refs instead of 10 or so. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done; this is the google books reference generator causing trouble. @Giants2008: I think that's the bunch; thanks for the review. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While checking the changes, I noticed that current ref 39 (Davis and Stillman) still has part of its page range missing. All of the other fixes looked good. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good spot; now fixed. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I haven't reviewed at FLC before, so let me know if I ask for something that's not part of the criteria.

  • Any reason why you don't include omnibus editions such as Earthsea? You include short story collections, which similarly include work that has been published before.
    The trouble I had with this list is that there's just so many variants of Le Guin's work, and I didn't want to be reduced to listing every edition, because several of the more popular stories have been published in too many omnibuses (omnibi?), and I don't see that our readers are served by listing them all. The definition I've come up with at the moment is "all collections that include material not previously published in book form" (as the lead says). I'm happy to discuss this if you don't like it;
    That seems reasonable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing actually wrong with saying "New York City" in the "publisher" column, but it's not the usual style, which would just be "New York".
    I remember a series of edits made a while back via bot/script which changed all the "New York"s in the "location" field to "New York City"; so I've stuck with that since.
    OK -- I don't like it myself, since standard bibliographic sources don't do it, but that's just personal preference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What criteria are you using to determine which non-fiction to include? For example, you are omitting introductory matter such as the introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness which first appeared in the 1976 Ace edition.
    Since she's written a large quantity of non-fiction in a variety of publications, at the moment only things mentioned in commentary about her writing. Again, there's an edition issue here; very many of her books have been reissued, and I'm quite certain a number of them have introductions that are new. The TLHOD one is just the best known.
    Limiting it to just items mentioned in commentary about her writing (and I see I should have paid attention to your definition in the lead) is tricky because you can't be sure you're comprehensive on that basis. I won't oppose on that basis, since I'm a newcomer to FLC, but to verify comprehensiveness you might consider looking at the reviews of her non-fiction listed at the ISFDB. For example, The Wave in the Mind was reviewed by Gary K. Wolfe in the June 2004 Locus; does that count as critical commentary? (You can see reviews listed in the ISFDB at the bottom of the title entry for each book.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair enough. That said, she's written 50+ essays outside collections, as far as I'm aware, and many of these are not really essays (They're letters to the editor and such). They're also in marginal publications. I think even attempting a full list is impractical. How would you suggest doing this?
    I think it depends on the purpose of the bibliography. If the goal is to make sure every single thing she wrote is listed, then the ISFDB is the model. I don't think that's necessary here. If the goal is to list all her fiction, and all her non-fiction that is of critical interest, then perhaps review commentary can be excluded. I don't quite see how you can ensure comprehensiveness without reading all the relevant critical commentary, though; I know you've read a lot about Le Guin, but can you say you've really done that? I don't know how the FLC requirement for comprehensiveness is interpreted, so I'm not sure how much this matters to this nomination -- for example, is it OK if you miss something out because you haven't read, e.g., Barbara Bucknall's or Joe De Bolt's books on Le Guin? More entries can be added later, after all, once someone reads those books. Or is that not acceptable to FLC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: You're right in saying that while I've read a lot about Le Guin, I can't claim to have read all the commentary (I doubt there's anyone who can; it's extensive, and being added to constantly). I've thought about this some more, and I think it's fine to leave it as a partial list. It seems clear that a comprehensive list is not only difficult, but impossible, because Le Guin wrote such a lot in publications that ranged from scholarly journals to private publications which never went on sale. I've skimmed some other FLs, and it seems that partial lists are not uncommon. I'm going to ask SchroCat for a second opinion, as the person who brought Winston Churchill as writer to FL status: that list only includes collected speeches, presumably for a similar reason. SchroCat, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider giving alternate titles, such as A Very Long Way From Anywhere Else, in the Notes column.
    Done, I think; I'll keep an eye out for others.
  • You give 1977 as the date for Nebula Award Stories 11; Lloyd Currey's Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction gives the year as 1976; the first edition is actually the UK hardcover from Victor Gollancz. I can give you the full biblio details for Currey if you want to cite it; it's the most authoritative work on sf and fantasy first printings, but unfortunately it only covers up to about 1978.
    Yes please!
    The cite is: {{Cite book|title=Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction and Selected Nonfiction|last=Currey|first=L.W.|publisher=G.K. Hall & Co.|year=1979|isbn=0-8161-8242-6|location=Boston, Massachusetts|pages=}}; the title page gives the author as "L.W. Currey, with the editorial assistance of David G. Hartwell" -- not sure how you might represent that. I think I might just ignore it. The Le Guin biblio is on pp. 304-306. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Actually, the SFE entry does list the 1976 publication, and it's already used as a reference. But if it contains information about illustrators, that might be useful. Would you mind taking a look? The illustration information on the early Hainish works is fuzzy.
    Sorry, there's nothing about the illustrators in Currey. What specifically are you looking for re the Hainish books? Are you looking for the cover artists? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm not keen on cover artists; every book has one, after all, yet they're rarely notable and rarely findable. The issue is that I have seen both ISFDB and other sources occasionally refer to cover artists as illustrators, and I do want to list illustrators. No worries if there's nothing in there.
  • The essay collection Dreams Must Explain Themselves appeared in book form in 1975 from Algol Press, prior to the edition you list.
    Done. It wasn't actually the same collection; it's primarily fiction, with a couple of essays thrown in. I've added it, in the fiction section, as it seems most appropriate there.
  • Have you cross-checked with the ISFDB bibliography for completeness? Looking through their list of short stories, for example, I see one titled Dragon of Pendor which you don't list; I don't have this so can't tell if it's an excerpt from one of the Earthsea books, as it appears from the title it might be. I think you're also missing Direction of the Road, one of my favourite Le Guin stories, as another example. The ISFDB includes things such as excerpts from other works, which I don't think you need to include. You could also check the ISFDB for illustrator information; for example, the Capra Press Buffalo Gals was illustrated by Margaret Chodos-Irvine.
    I found no evidence that "The Dragon from Pendor" was anything other than a reprint of Chapter 5 of Wizard. I'll look into the rest.
  • ISFDB gives November 1970 as the publication date for Quark/1, and I have a print reference to back it up if you need it (Mike Ashley's Gateways to Forever).

I think the layout and organization look good. I've listed a couple of fixes above, but my main concern would be comprehensiveness, based on a quick comparison to the ISFDB finding one or two apparent omissions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Here's one problem with ISFDB. They're often right, but occasionally wrong, and would not qualify as an WP:RS. Thus often the only way to verify obscure details from ISFDB is to check the original work, which is difficult, to say the least. I'll give this my best shot (I had done a sweep of ISFDB, but clearly it wasn't thorough enough) but I might end up pinging you to ask about original versions quite often. Thanks for the review. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked about the ISFDB at RSN in the past; see here, for example. I think it's reliable for what it does list, though if it omits something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The quote at that discussion from SFE3 seems to me a strong endorsement from a trusted source. My use of the ISFDB has made it through FAC at least once or twice, so I think you'd be OK using it to fill gaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points on another look:

  • No date on the magazine issue for "April in Paris" or for "Legends for a New Land"
    Fixed in one case; there really doesn't seem to be a more specific date for "Legends for a New Land".
  • Suggest giving publisher and location for the cited anthologies such as Again, Dangerous Visions.
  • You're inconsistent about ending the notes with a full stop.
    Now fixed.
  • You're not consistent about using locations with the publishers in the footnotes and sources; they're not required but they should be consistent if you're going to use them.
    Done in all but two cases, one where it's unknown (World Cat doesn't know, the book doesn't say) and another which is an ebook.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I'm watching this; it looks like you're still adding material so let me know when you're done and I'll go through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: My apologies for the delay, real life intruded a little. I think I've got all the legitimate fiction from the ISFDB list: and damn was there a lot that was completely ignored everywhere else. So thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have had to ignore several entries: there have been many many excerpts published, and then there's stuff like this which I just cannot track down anywhere outside ISFDB. There's also the matter of this, an infomercial (in Nature! I had no idea they did that sort of thing...) and I'm uncertain whether to include it. I'm sure there's more cleanup to be done, but perhaps you can take a look in the meantime? Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 this looks like it's stabilised a little, is that correct? If so, I'll give it one more look. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Actually, I'm afraid that's because I've run into a lot of RL work. There's still some additions to make. I hope to get to this soon. Feel free to leave comments, though. Vanamonde (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: sorry for the delay. There's still some cleanup to be done, but I think what needs to be added has been. Perhaps you could take another look. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look:

  • I don't see any obvious omissions now. I agree that this can be ignored for now -- though if you ask at WP:RX I'd lay odds someone will find a copy, or you can leave a message at the talk page of the ISFDB user who verified it, asking for a photo of the contents page. Interestingly, it looks as though that's the only publication of that particular piece, so there's no English version. But with so little information it's OK to omit it for now. Re the infomercial: yes, I'd include it as fiction. It's not the only one they've done -- Ted Chiang had an excellent piece in Nature in 2005, and judging by this there may be many more (the ISFDB only indexes items relevant to sf and fantasy, so many of those may be fiction).
    Fair enough. Added.
  • You can add the date (August 1994) to the sort order for "Another Story OR A Fisherman of the Inland Sea". The title of the original publication was just "Another Story"; any reason why you list it that way?
    Added. A lot of the bibliographies use the latter title; I missed the fact that the first publication used a different one.
  • Similarly Quark/1 can be sorted as November 1970.
    This I'm not so sure about: I've not listed month of publication for any books (because most of them don't have any) and it seems strange to do it just for one...

Other than that this looks good, and I'll support once those minor fixes are done. Thanks for your diligence on this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've responded to everything, I think; thanks for a detailed review! Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think you could call LADeDeDa fiction; it's structured as an infomercial, but we don't mark e.g. epistolary stories as such in bibliographies, so I think there's no need here. OK on Quark/1, though it's an anthology series and in some respects was a magazine, so I think you could go either way. Anyway, this is definitely worthy of promotion now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! @The Rambling Man: Don't mean to be a bother, but just you left now, I think, and I'm already feeling guilty over how long this has been open. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Vanamonde, one more note -- it might look better if you had a natural default sort on the tables. I know they're sortable, but a chronological sort is probably the most natural, though you could go with alphabetical, I suppose. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Happy to hear more feedback; but there is an order at the moment, though it may not be readily apparent. Within the fiction, it's sorted by series/setting, then format, then chronology; which might be a bit strange, but it is how most RS do it. Even ISFDB sorts it this way, more or less. Vanamonde (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: Since this has been open for a long time, and Giants2008 and TRM have both commented here, I wonder if you could assess this for promotion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on vacation this week, so it might take me a bit. --PresN 04:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, promoting. --PresN 02:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Ursula_K._Le_Guin_bibliography/archive1&oldid=852731727"