Talk:Online general-interest book database

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May it flourish on its own. DGG 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Expansion

I will try to expand the IBDoF and IBList entries in the next week or so. Also, what do you think of putting the infoboxes back in? SarcasticDwarf 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I would go very slow, keep the entries fairly short, and not add what might be seen as too many links to authors etc and attract the wrong kind of attention.DGG 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
Will do. SarcasticDwarf 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISFDB Alternatives

Does anyone have any thoughts on either moving or removing the ISFDB alternatives (the three links at the bottom). It seems to me that if they are noteworthy enough to be linked to, they should have their own section. If not, they should be removed. SarcasticDwarf 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pleae don't delete them - Besides ISFDB these three are my top resources for research science fiction and fantasy publications. One difference is then are not open for editing though if you e-mail Bill Contento he'll update his db. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Why not just change the title of the section to something like "Book databases for speculative fiction"? Then everything in the section would be on-topic, and the first database would still be the "featured" one. B7T (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliophil

Have none of you seen this site bibliophil.org? -asmadeus 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the present article needs references

needs references, real references to articles in journals or respected on line sources, talking about them, or it may well be up for deletion again. Someone just tried. I will defend it, but it would be very easy to defend with actual conventional references. DGG 05:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that an encyclopedic content is summarized in the first paragraph relating to what an online general-interest book database is. The rest, can only be interpreted as four plugs for sites. Instead, the four mentioned databases should have their own dedicated articles, where they must describe the importance of them to sustain existence - then this article simple links to notable or examples of databases. Otherwise, this is a non-comprehensive extended list of non-notable web sites. -asmadeus 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The sites are widely used, and generally know.The material is straightforward description. To the best of my knowledge all sites in general use are included; Many articles dealing with specific computer organizations or models or similar things group them as article sections; many articles on minor characters in fiction do; --it is one of the acceptable ways of dealing with minor subjects--it is not a choice of having and article or nothing.--why do you think it is not acceptable? where's that policy? DGG 09:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Problems

There are some POV problems. "The major strength of..." etc. Someone fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.62.217 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 July 2007

Agreed, and if you have time then please plug away at improving the article. I'd personally rather get away from the numbers and towards a description of why each database exists. Another minor complication is some databases are general purpose (fiction and non-fiction) while others focus on a specific genre meaning the article could be divided into General Purpose, Fiction, and Specialty sections. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISFDB good source

Is the ISFDB a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? Puddytang 02:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I use it as a bibliographic source/reference and there's support in wikipedia for this via Template:Isfdb name. I would not use ISFDB as a biographic reference other than for information about the ISFDB itself. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability: Books Ultimate

Can anyone support the notability of the Books Ultimate site? As far as I can tell it is still under construction (to a very limited extent) and has less than two dozen posts on its forum. Google also does not return much. If I don't hear back in the next couple days I will remove it. SarcasticDwarf (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty apparent it's a brand new site given the number of features yet to be implemented. Apparently they chose to not populate the data from existing databases meaning there's next to nothing on the site. I do wish there was an "about" page that explains why the site exists other than for Google ad revenue. The domain was registered Feb 1, 2008. Googling the domain owner's name finds one review on Amazon (eight years ago) for a DVD and apparently zero connection to existing book/author communities. I'd agree with not listing this in Wikipedia for now. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)