Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Talk:The House of Night and Chain (Novel)

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Revision as of 19:32, 11 July 2019 by Darkelf77 (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I do not think "Goodreads" is an acceptable source. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2019 (MDT)

goodreads is a popular book review site on the US I’d consider it reputable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodreads Harriticus (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (MDT)
"Reputable" is not really a criterium. "Official" is what we are looking for. And this passage has trouble spelt all over it: "Goodreads is a social cataloging website that allows individuals to freely search its database of books, annotations, and reviews. Users can sign up and register books to generate library catalogs and reading lists." So in short: Fan-work. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2019 (MDT)
Amazon's description of the book, almost matches what's on the page. Dram (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2019 (MDT)
Almost is not good enough. The question essentially is: Why use second or even third hand sources if there are official ones or at least professional ones who get their texts directly from the publisher? -Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2019 (MDT)
It's VERY dubious question - whether to use goodreads and amazon or not. I would use it in case of only covers and even then - only if we could not use any other source and BL will not release the subject anymore (as it was with BL Year Anthology), or even then mark them as 'scanned'. 'The House of Night and Chain' will be released in BL (I am sure) - that's why I think we must wait. As for truth, this book will definitely be released because it is mentioned here. As an alternative, I can offer the creation of a separate banner (as of the Fanatic materials), which would indicate that the information was taken from a public website selling official books, therefore is very conditional and the source will be replaced by the official, as soon as the book comes out on BL.--Darkelf77 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (MDT)
I think this all somewhat devolves into a 'best practice' argument via-á-vis sourcing and reliability of information. While Games Workshop, its subsidiaries, and associated companies like Forge World are the primary sources that're the most desirable, there's not always going to be an existent primary source document readily accessible either due to obscurity or time-sensitivity (as in this case). When it comes to publications, I think using Amazon and Goodreads should be more than acceptable for basic information like page count, cover image etc. These pages almost always list the ISBN, so by inputting the ISBN into an ISBN search engine, it'll verify the basic details listed on the site. However, as stated, primary sources should be used when possible, so perhaps rather than a banner, maybe we should have a policy whereby if someone creates a new article for a publication and uses a secondary source (like Amazon or Goodreads) due to the publication being forthcoming or buried in the Archive, then they're obligated to update it to a BL.com one when the publication releases or an Archive page is located?
In regards to a description, I think that should be omitted until an 'official' source provides one. Also, in relation to the credibility of globally established actors like Amazon, I think temporary usage as a source of images or basic information (in lieu of an 'official' source) should be a no-brainer. With all due respect, if rigorous sourcing (including fact-checking) and careful pragmatism are adhered to, we won't need to sacrifice up-to-dateness due to overcautious rigidity. GrumpyDilettante (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2019 (MDT)
Since Goodreads seems to be a user-created repository I have no faith in it. I do not object to the use of professionally-run sites like Amazon. And while the idea of "obliging" users to come back and update their articles later is a noble one in practice it won't work. Especially not if these pages can't be located with a template or similar. And then I'd ask myself why allow something "wrong" in the first place just to have an article? We are not in a race and if mistakes are made that is damaging. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2019 (MDT)
Then we can switch description to the "Amazon"s one. Also Amazon have the same cover, so source for cover also can be changed to Amazon's. I hope it will satisfy all.--Darkelf77 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2019 (MDT)