Talk:Faculty books
From Stanford CSD History
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 23:18, 5 April 2006 Dbrown (Talk | contribs) Should we apply some editorial standards? What should they be? ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 23:50, 5 April 2006 Dbrown (Talk | contribs) Should we apply some editorial standards? What should they be? - add Gio's suggestions Next diff → |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| == Should we apply some editorial standards? What should they be? == | == Should we apply some editorial standards? What should they be? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Gio]] made the following suggestions: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Multiple editions? Suggestion: don't enter separatly, but show with | ||
| + | main title. | ||
| + | * Edited books? State so. | ||
| + | * Translations? Omit them. | ||
| + | * How to organize them? authors last name, and then chronological? By subject would be nice for readers, but topic areas are not that well bounded and stable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Dbrown|Dbrown]] 16:50, 5 April 2006 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:50, 5 April 2006
The Faculty books page was created by importing a Word file assembled by Nils Nilsson, Jill Anderson, and others.
The import was done using copy and paste. The italics for book titles did not come across, so the entries must be edited by hand.
Should we apply some editorial standards? What should they be?
User:Gio made the following suggestions:
- Multiple editions? Suggestion: don't enter separatly, but show with
main title.
- Edited books? State so.
- Translations? Omit them.
- How to organize them? authors last name, and then chronological? By subject would be nice for readers, but topic areas are not that well bounded and stable.
--Dbrown 16:50, 5 April 2006 (PDT)
