Talk:The Ragged Edge of Science

message: "the general references that were removed support more than the footnoted statments, and are appropriately general, the Schweitzer review supports notability"
This sort of nonsense is exactly why I've been demanding inline citations. What "more" is there beyond "the footnoted statements" in the trivially short article prose? If "the Schweitzer review supports notability" then what does it say about the book? If it doesn't contain useful material to go into the article, then it doesn't add to notability. If it doesn't verify specific information in the article, then it isn't a reference. HrafnTalkStalk 12:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to engage in edit warring, but I contend that both the Laughlin and Chalker references support all of the data in the info box, the illustrator, the publisher and the date of publication. The Laughlin additionally supports the list of contents. Removing them from the References section leaves those facts unsupported.  While I do not have access to the Schweitzer review, it's there to support WP:BK#Criteria #1. i.e. it is a non-trivial published work whose sources are independent of the book itself.  --Rtrace (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are throwing in 'references' sight unseen? This is exactly the sort of 'tomfoolery' I was afraid of. Elements such as illustrator, publisher, date of publication and table of contents are all stated in the book itself, so do not require a secondary source. Further, they are most certainly "trivial" coverage as that term is defined in WP:NOTE. HrafnTalkStalk 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to finally see the point acknowledged that the primary reference is the book itself. While you are correct that references are not needed to support the basic bibliographic data, I don't believe that has anything to do with his particular inclusion of the Schweitzer review as a reference. As he tells you, it's there to support notability. I believe Rtrace's point is that the existence of a book review is in itself an acknowledgment of at least some degree of notability; after all, it was worth reviewing. Admittedly, I have seen plenty of reviews (particularly movie reviews) stating that the material under review is worthless trash and one should steer clear of it, though that is unlikely in this case; Schweitzer is a known associate and supporter of de Camp. That said, yes it's much better, as a general rule, to cite sources one has actually seen. But labeling another contributor's contributions as "nonsense" or "tomfoolery" is both counterproductive and in contravention to wikipedia policy. Can we all agree to refrain from negative labeling? BPK (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Two more references with quotations from their content have been added, which should satisfy even Hrafn. BPK (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Elementary, my dear Watson. Click on each article in the contents list, and you will be taken to a reference to the publication in which the article originally appeared. I could, of course, have cited each of these references individually, but that's so untidy, and it's reasonable to presume a certain degree of net-experience among followers-up of references, IMHO. You're welcome. BPK (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the Laughlin book also cited as a reference for the same information does contain it, to my certain knowledge. The ISFDB reference is included because it's more accessible to the general reader. Just in case you were wondering. BPK (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so "elementary" as the first couple of links don't provide such information (presumably as they had not been published previously). Some explication in the footnote would be warranted. HrafnTalkStalk 04:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to put it in, if you feel it is needed. BPK (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference irregularities 

message: Could somebody please explain to me what part of "Most of the book's constituent articles were originally published in a variety of science magazines, science fiction magazines, and other publications from 1950-1976, including Science Digest, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Astounding Science Fiction, Science Fiction Stories, Future Combined with Science Fiction Stories, Science Fiction Quarterly, Dynamic Science Fiction, Fate, Exploring the Unknown, Fantastic Universe, the Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, and Amra. Others were published for the first time in the collection." is sourcable to this reference cited for it? There appears to be no overlap whatsoever. HrafnTalkStalk 16:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Elementary, my dear Watson. Click on each article in the contents list, and you will be taken to a reference to the publication in which the article originally appeared. I could, of course, have cited each of these references individually, but that's so untidy, and it's reasonable to presume a certain degree of net-experience among followers-up of references, IMHO. You're welcome. BPK (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, the Laughlin book also cited as a reference for the same information does contain it, to my certain knowledge. The ISFDB reference is included because it's more accessible to the general reader. Just in case you were wondering. BPK (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so "elementary" as the first couple of links don't provide such information (presumably as they had not been published previously). Some explication in the footnote would be warranted. HrafnTalkStalk 04:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to put it in, if you feel it is needed. BPK (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ISFDB ref

message: I think the new Synopsis section contains too much editorial commentary, that probably isn't permissible (lacking a third party source that makes the commentary for us) per WP:SYNTH. HrafnTalkStalk 04:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The commentary accurately reflected the point of view expressed in the book; as for a third party, the ILL-ADVISED review makes similar points. However, I have gone through and removed everything that could likely be regarded as editorializing. You appear to be a difficult person to please. It looks to me like you are determined to be dissatisfied, not just with the article as it stood before you took aim at it, but with everything that has been done to improve the article in response to your own suggestions. Aside from negative criticism of the efforts of others, I have not observed that you have done anything to improve the article yourself. If you don't like what others do, why not do the work yourself, the way you want it? Carping from the sidelines is easy. Try carrying the ball. BPK (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis section 

message: *The 'plot summary' of the 'Contents' & 'Synopsis' constitutes 3,525/8,850 bytes of the article or 40%. This would seem to be excessive, but YMMV.
*A blog is rarely a WP:RS, and no indication has been given why 'Ill advised' should be considered to be above the herd.
But why should I be surprised? This is after all an article where the WP:CONSENSUS is to throw in references sight unseen, and to provide multiple references for information already contained in the book itself. The consensus appears to be to WP:IAR and throw any old garbage in. So be it. I don't hold with fighting losing battles, even when I am 'fighting the good fight' of upholding policy. I will therefore leave you in possession of this cesspit. Good day to you. HrafnTalkStalk 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't take what you habitually dish out, eh? Sorry to have let my annoyance show and to have responded in kind when the exchange fell short of civility, but I'm not the one who took it there. Honestly, that was the way you were behaving from the very start. BPK (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Plot Summary' tag, Unreliable Source & Farewell