Category talk:Science fiction editors

Those concerned with the biographies of editors should be aware that the professional lives of editors are much less well-documented than those of authors. Often, documentation of their work and careers exists in print only in brief mentions in trade journals and much of this material is not available on the web.

Many of the biographies of science fiction editors came to Wikipedia via the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (circa 2004) where they were created by people knowledgeable in the subject area. Material that meets Wikipedia's criteria for "verifiability" may not be readily available to support these biographical entries.

This does not mean that these peole or their careers lack notability. Pleasantville 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to cite sources on Wikipedia which are not on the internet (such as articles or interviews in Locus, Chronicle, or, of course, The New York Review of Science Fiction. Shsilver 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with all topics, if we can't find verifiable sources then the material should be left out. Only verfiable material should be included. -Will Beback · † · 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will: the proposal you put on the table is the gutting of an entire profession's Wikipedia entries. Why would you want to do that? I did not bring them here. But when I added tags designating which ones were book editors, Jossi followed me around complaining that the articles were inadequately sourced. I have added some sourcing to a few of the entries, but it is a large and difficult project to dig up the references to support the material on editors brought over to Wikipedia 2 years ago. (Not by me.) --Pleasantville 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I do not "follow you around". I have your bio and that of your husband on my watchlist.; (b) All sourcing is labor intensive' (c) you can move unsourced text to talk, and slowly re-add as you find sources. Better a short article that is verifiable, than a long one which is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion wouldn't exist if you, Jossi, hadn't followed me article to article marking sf editor articles as lacking sources in the first place. I did not write the material in question. Should someone go through and stubify some substantial portion of the wikipedia articles on science fiction editors, that would seem to most rational people to be vandalism, so I am sure no one is going to do that. --Pleasantville 12:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shsilver is right. Offline sources are valid references, especially where most of the sources are not online. Avt tor 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]