Talk:Brandon Sanderson bibliography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brandon Sanderson bibliography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cosmere section

I am planning on re-roganising this article to clump together the 'Cosmere' works into a section. The current 'is a cosmere' or 'is not a cosmere' notation is messy and non-conventional. Having all the Cosmere works in one sub-section will be much more concise. Let me know if you have any thoughts first? Mountain^cirque 15:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a much more sensible way than it is currently. There should be a short (sentence or two) explanation of what the cosmere is, but other than that I support it. Thanks for the initiative! Caidh (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That works. In the future, I recommend mentioning it on Talk:Brandon Sanderson, and then waiting more than 24 hours from when you post about it, just in case others want to make suggestions or comments. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being over-keen, I'll do that in future. Mountain^cirque 10:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oky 41.122.3.100 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological ordering?

Whyever would someone not make the bibliography orderable chronologically? I know, coming from nowhere and just asking for stuff isn't good manners, just a suggestion. 141.70.81.151 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are chronological within each section. Doing the entire list chronologically would not be as helpful. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they are chronological - the Cosmere section appears to be ordered alphabetically including books that haven't even been written yet and then within those it's chronological. This is not a good bibliography for anyone (like me) coming new to his works. TheoGB (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to agree with TheoGB here - I'm a newcomer to Sanderson and this page is not at all user friendly. I've just had to pick my way through the whole thing trying to identify which books actually currently exist, as opposed to might exist at some unspecified point in the future. It'd be helpful if the page was clearly divided into what's currently in print and what's been announced or just vaguely mentioned as forthcoming. Would also be helpful if it was clearer which are the YA novels (because I've personally got no interest in those so I need to know which ones to ignore). The whole point of a Wikipedia entry is that it's a first port of call for noobs, not a massively complicated thing for people who are already fans. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody argued, so I've just blitzed it. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardinal Wurzel: Regarding your edit summary O comes before R. You don't use "the" when you're alphabetising: that is true in the real world outside WP, and your edit will cause the table to appear in the "correct" order when first loaded, but note that the tables are sortable. When you sort by the Title column, The Original still appears at the end, after the "S" titles. There is a solution to this, which is that the titles that need to be sorted differently (i.e., those starting with an article) need to use a sorting template like {{Sort}}. However, I'm not sure whether this is normally done on WP, and suspect that a search will find a large number of pages where it is not. While I'm aware of WP:OSE, I think in this case, it needs to be investigated (whether the MOS is aligned with this practice). Anybody know? (I have to run, or I would investigate it.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just looking at it again - given that it's specifically an audio thing, it's probably better to start an "Audio works" section (assuming there are more on the way) and move it there. I'll see to that now. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN missing

I'm not sure it's particularly necessary or helpful to include ISBN numbers at all – but assuming it is, which ISBN number are we using? They're specific to edition, so they're not the same for hardbacks and paperbacks, and they're not the same from country to country. Are we asking for the ISBN of the first US hardcover edition? Is that useful to anyone? Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, to pick two random examples, the ISBN that's currently on the page for Elantris is the American mass-market paperback, while the ISBN for Warbreaker that Ciridae just added is for the first edition hardcover. Again, what use is just a random load of ISBNs with no consistency in which edition they represent? Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

The word 'cosmere' is not traditionally capitalized. Is this done because of some Wikipedia style guide thing, or is this a mistake? Sorry, I'm not much of a Wikipedian, so I don't know the rules for editing, but I do know this is something people who aren't hardcore fans often get wrong. 2601:3C4:4200:1AB0:8CFB:EA5E:65B3:6D83 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point; the fandom's wiki does not capitalize it. I would bring this to Talk:Brandon Sanderson to get full consensus, though. Radagast (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]