Talk:New Writings in SF

Why are these separate?

Why are these articles separate? Is each volume so significant and unique from the others that they each deserve an article? I think these could all be merged with little loss to the subject. Padillah (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking your questions/statements in order: (1) They're separate books. (2) Well, I think so. (3) Plainly, opinions can differ on this point. However, if they were merged, It should be into a series article (New Writings in SF) not the book article (New Writings in SF 1). Frankly, my opinion is that the series deserves a separate (not merged) article as well. BPK (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough on merging to a series article rather than the first book but I didn't have a series article to tag so I used this one. I figure, if this proposal fails then we can just remove the tags and keep going, If it succeeds we can ask for a rename of the book one article later. Just trying to minimize the impact. I think I need to put a notice on a proposed merge page somewhere, let me check. Padillah (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this merger proposal as I am not sure that each article on its own would pass the notability requirements of WP:BK. I would think that this would be a perfect candidate for a series article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was procedural close, not a move request. Feel free to discuss merges independently of this close, and note that the move is not blocked by a bluelink with a history. Dekimasuよ! 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

---

New Writings in SF 1 → New Writings in SF (series) — Book series that are not notable enough to have 22 separate articles. --Padillah (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Still opposed. Hard to build a consensus either way with just three people commenting, though... BPK (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Adding to my earlier comment, if the merger goes through, as I noted under the previous heading, the series article should be New Writings in SF, not New Writings in SF (series). As each volume was distingished from all others numerically, there would be no need to add "(series)" to the article title. A agree that there should be a series article, whatever the fate of the volume articles. BPK (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on your opposition. Do you believe that each of the current articles pass the notability requirements of WP:BK? --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. I don't think all 22 volumes of this compilation are notable in and of themselves. Thus the request to move all 22 articles to one "Series" article. My apologies, I didn't do this right the first time. Padillah (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Captain-tucker was addressing my comment, Padillah, not yours. He appears to me to be in agreement with your merger proposal, not in opposition, and I don't believe your opinion on the notability of the individual articles was in question. Incidentally, there are not twenty-two articles at present, just thirteen – one on each of the first twelve Carnell-edited volumes and one on one of the Bulmer-edited volumes.

To respond to Captain-tucker's query on specificity, see above under "Why are these separate?" for more details. No need to repeat them merely because a new subheading has been added to the talk page. As for the question on whether each of the current articles passing the notability guidelines, that is arguable. There would be no problem at all justifying the series as notable, but the parts are the issue in question. In their present stub form, they may not pass muster – what stub would? – though I certainly feel they could be improved to the point that they would. There seems little point in building up an article that might soon disappear, however, unless and until the challenge is resolved in its favor. BPK (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a merge request not a rename request. Withdraw the move request and create New Writings in SF (no DAB required) and then seek consensus on a merge at an appropriate forum such as Talk:New Writings in SF or at WP:PM. In my opinion, any notability here will almost certainly be associated with either the series or the individual short stories, rather than with a particular volume, unless there is some unusual reason a particular volume might be notable not yet mentioned, and this is how the articles should be organised. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bureaucratic junk (originally at the end of the archives "Requested Move" section)

If that isn't the worst kind of bureaucratic junk. Have you guys been studying the movie Brazil? Fine, I'll try it this way then. Padillah (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It says at the top of WP:RM that the page is not for the discussion of merges. There are reasons for this; one is that even if there was a consensus to merge the pages, you would be requiring an enormous amount of work from the person who closed the discussion. Another is that this discussion is not automatically linked to from all of the applicable pages. If you just want input, it's fine to make a listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. And like I said, the move is not blocked. Adding a tangential listing to a backlogged page isn't bureaucratic, but I don't see that it's helpful. Dekimasuよ! 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it leaves the classification of merge vs. move up to the requester. To me this is a move, move all those little articles into one big one. That's why I regarded the dismissal of the request as bureaucratic junk, the editor was able to dismiss it through loopholes in the definition. This could be dismissed as a merge as well, through the same loophole - poof, bureaucracy. Then I guess my beef is with the move/merge pages in not representing and explaining themselves more clearly. I've programmed computers for 17 years (so I'm not stupid) but this will be my third attempt at getting what should have been a simple merge/move request started. I'm wondering now if someone isn't going to tell me this is one of each: A move (of NWiSF1 to the new name) and a merge (of all the other articles into the now new article). Maybe the whole process has me jaded but there it is. Padillah (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion isn't really part of the archived "Requested Move" section, but a commentary on it, I've separated it off into its own section. Padillah, we may be on opposite sides of the merge issue, but I sympathize with your frustration. It ought to be possible to get to a consensus/resolution without getting tripped up by technical details, however technically correct (or not) such details may be. BPK (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the merge proposal notices on all the individual pages and dicussion pages for "New Writings in SF" volumes to direct the merger discussion to this page. BPK (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the merge notice help (I had a 3 hr. meeting on the new program architecture) and I think the rest needs to be taken to WP:RM and WP:PM so they can write those pages more lucidly. Again, thanks. Padillah (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger, again

I’d like to query the merger, discussed above

The usual format for SF anthology series’ seems to be to have a page on the series as a whole, and a page on each book individually. I can’t see any reason why this series should be different. And despite it being proposed as a merger, most of the content of the various pages seems to have disappeared.

It would make more sense to have one series page and a dozen or so book pages, than to have, as now, one really cluttered page and a dozen or so re-directs. Opinions? Swanny18 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel this page is particularly cluttered, although naturally, as the person responsible for most of the original separate book articles that were actually made, I would agree that we should have them as well. The merger question was not so much resolved as preempted when someone just went ahead and replaced all those pages with redirects to this one. With the whole matter of whether they should exist or not still under dispute, it didn't seem worth the effort to recreate them at that time, so I just concentrated on making this page as good as possible. And there the whole matter has rested ever since.

My vote is for keeping this article essentially as is, but also for restoring the individual articles. BPK (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As the person that originally objected I have no problem with this type of article. In fact I think it would have been easier to stat this project that way - a single "Anthology" article and then expand that by spinning off book articles when they were ready. What I saw in the beginning was, understandably, 23 empty articles all at once. Someone is going to PROD most of those unless they stick out. This way (anthology article first) you'll be able to build the article and then spin off each book in it's own time. Padillah (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it’s mainly the "Contents" section that looks cluttered; is there any other way of presenting the information? Tables, maybe?

As for pages on the individual books, in other series they each have publication details and a list of contents at least; is there some objection to having this series done the same way? Swanny18 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(PS I’ve been doing some tidying in the Category:Science fiction anthology series category; The format seems to be (for example) a series page thus and pages on individual books thus. By way of illustration Swanny18 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

On the basis of this discussion I have restored the article for New Writings in SF 1, since the archived pre-redirect version coincides well with your volume example. The remaining 12 of the 13 pre-existing volume articles (not 23!) could receive the same treatment, if it's agreeable to all concerned, and articles for the remaining volumes that never had them could be created on the same basis. For the present, and pending further discussion, I will refrain from any further such action, however. BPK (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know I saw a 22nd one but that's beside the point. I'm good if you guys are good. Nice to see a real resolution to this. Thanks guys. Padillah (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK; thanks! Swanny18 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)