| Revision as of 07:21, 19 April 2008 editBefore My Ken (talk | contribs)42,112 edits →Lede← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:24, 19 April 2008 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,894 edits →Lede: +Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| :Thanks for sharing your opinion, Ed, but the lead is directly proportional to the material, and you appear to be outnumbered. ] added the material to the article in good faith and his work deserves improvement, not deletion. As usual, you have tried to force your opinion into the article, and there are two editor who favor its inclusion at this time. You have reverted three times today, so please do not violate the 3RR. Thanks, again. ] (]) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | :Thanks for sharing your opinion, Ed, but the lead is directly proportional to the material, and you appear to be outnumbered. ] added the material to the article in good faith and his work deserves improvement, not deletion. As usual, you have tried to force your opinion into the article, and there are two editor who favor its inclusion at this time. You have reverted three times today, so please do not violate the 3RR. Thanks, again. ] (]) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I've made a start on what I think is an appropriate lede for this bibliography (which should be remembered was spun off form the main article because of length problems). It's basically the lede from the main article ported over and edited to focus on the writing. I think it serve sufficiently as a short introduction to the subject, which is really all the lede for this article needs to be -- anyone looking for more can go to the main article, that's what it's there for. | ::I've made a start on what I think is an appropriate lede for this bibliography (which should be remembered was spun off form the main article because of length problems). It's basically the lede from the main article ported over and edited to focus on the writing. I think it serve sufficiently as a short introduction to the subject, which is really all the lede for this article needs to be -- anyone looking for more can go to the main article, that's what it's there for. | ||
| :::We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on what Ed Fitzgerald thinks is appropriate. We edit based on consensus, and right now, you are outnumbered. The lead from the main article has nothing to do with this article, and the previous material was entirely appropriate and accurate. I will be restoring the material you removed in full once you are asleep. Good night. ] (]) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:24, 19 April 2008
 | Science Fiction NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Books NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Formatting
I would like to discuss the appropriate bibliographic format for this page, if one exists. —Viriditas | Talk 05:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the person responsible for re-ordering the novels by the date of their composition, which I think is crucial to understanding his career. In fact, the research for this chronology was done by Paul Williams, and although I'm sure Paul would have done it without my urging, I'd like to think that my encouraging him (back when I was database manager for the Philip K. Dick Society) helped in some small way.
The most useful format for the short stories is more problematical. They, too, might be re-arranged by date of composition (since they were eventually grouped that way by paul when he edited The Collected Stories.Emvan 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've merged the further reading section with this article and changed the title to Bibliography of Philip K. Dick. We should use a standard bibliographic format. —Viriditas | Talk 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add some more bibliographic detail, along the lines of the Bibliography of John W. Campbell. Any comments or objections? It will be at least a couple of weeks till I can get to it, so I thought I'd post a note here first since the format has already been discussed.
Separately, I'd suggest that if I do that, the main bibliography should be in publication order of first edition, which is a fairly standard bibliographic convention. The composition order is clearly valuable, though, so how about appending it to the bibliography in a more compressed form, perhaps tabular? Mike Christie 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Composition order isn't arbitrary enough, I think we should order them by the date that he thought of the idea for the story. 141.150.241.123 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
New book
"Voices From the Street (forthcoming 2006)" - Can someone tell me who will be publishing this book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.226.246 (talk • contribs)
- A quick check of the official page gives no release date or publisher. Oh, and sign your messages. ---Charles 17:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:The Crack in Space.jpg
Image:The Crack in Space.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Lede
I have no objection to an appropriate lede, a short one of about a paragraph or so, focused on Dick's written output. That would certainly be an asset to this article. But a long general essay on Dick, unreferenced and duplicative of the main article is not what's called for. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your opinion, Ed, but the lead is directly proportional to the material, and you appear to be outnumbered. User:Roogroog added the material to the article in good faith and his work deserves improvement, not deletion. As usual, you have tried to force your opinion into the article, and there are two editor who favor its inclusion at this time. You have reverted three times today, so please do not violate the 3RR. Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a start on what I think is an appropriate lede for this bibliography (which should be remembered was spun off form the main article because of length problems). It's basically the lede from the main article ported over and edited to focus on the writing. I think it serve sufficiently as a short introduction to the subject, which is really all the lede for this article needs to be -- anyone looking for more can go to the main article, that's what it's there for.
- We don't edit Misplaced Pages based on what Ed Fitzgerald thinks is appropriate. We edit based on consensus, and right now, you are outnumbered. The lead from the main article has nothing to do with this article, and the previous material was entirely appropriate and accurate. I will be restoring the material you removed in full once you are asleep. Good night. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a start on what I think is an appropriate lede for this bibliography (which should be remembered was spun off form the main article because of length problems). It's basically the lede from the main article ported over and edited to focus on the writing. I think it serve sufficiently as a short introduction to the subject, which is really all the lede for this article needs to be -- anyone looking for more can go to the main article, that's what it's there for.