Talk:Crime fiction/Catalogs: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (Talk:Crime fiction/Catalogs moved to Talk:Crime fiction/Catalog of prominent writers: this is what it is *supposed* to be called) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Format of catalogs: replies -- I'll put examples on each of the pages in question) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
== Format of catalogs == | |||
How should the entries of the catalogs be arranged? | |||
* For [[Crime fiction/Catalogs/Famous books|Famous books]] I would suggest to list: Year it was first published - Title - Author (ordered by the year). | |||
:::'''Agreed''' | |||
* For [[Crime fiction/Catalogs/Famous detectives|Famous detectives]] it is more difficult. Simply by last name? Or classify them first by "type" (private detective, amateur, ...)? Or geographical (Maigret in Paris, ...)? Or by time period? Or a combination of these? In any case, I think the author should be added. | |||
:::'''By first name, last name of the detectives, then the author's name, then the time period in which the dectective operated, as per the publication of the books. A little more trouble, but not difficult for a mystery fan.''' | |||
* For the [[Crime fiction/Catalogs/Prominent writers|Prominent writers]] the alphabetical order is best, of course. But the format might need a change. (Perhaps year of birth should be added, too?). Concerning the title: Is "prominent" a good choice? (Will all entries be prominent?) | |||
:::'''Alphabetical, last name, first name, with dates of birth and death, years only. The title is tough: Prominent, Well-known, Representative, Noted, etc. etc.? All in all, I think Prominent is best -- who really cares if some non-prominent ones sneak in. And what's prominent to an old geezer in the U.S.A., who grew up reading 1920 Brit books, may not be prominent to a gentleman in Vienna and vice-versa.''' [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 10:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:45, 9 January 2010
Format of catalogs
How should the entries of the catalogs be arranged?
- For Famous books I would suggest to list: Year it was first published - Title - Author (ordered by the year).
- Agreed
- For Famous detectives it is more difficult. Simply by last name? Or classify them first by "type" (private detective, amateur, ...)? Or geographical (Maigret in Paris, ...)? Or by time period? Or a combination of these? In any case, I think the author should be added.
- By first name, last name of the detectives, then the author's name, then the time period in which the dectective operated, as per the publication of the books. A little more trouble, but not difficult for a mystery fan.
- For the Prominent writers the alphabetical order is best, of course. But the format might need a change. (Perhaps year of birth should be added, too?). Concerning the title: Is "prominent" a good choice? (Will all entries be prominent?)
- Alphabetical, last name, first name, with dates of birth and death, years only. The title is tough: Prominent, Well-known, Representative, Noted, etc. etc.? All in all, I think Prominent is best -- who really cares if some non-prominent ones sneak in. And what's prominent to an old geezer in the U.S.A., who grew up reading 1920 Brit books, may not be prominent to a gentleman in Vienna and vice-versa. Hayford Peirce 16:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
--Peter Schmitt 10:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)