Talk:Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Start‑class Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Philosophy: Literature / Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Logic

priority

The "priority" rating is meant to describe the importance of the article to the entire Mathematics project. The idea is that we should be able to obtain different sizes of abridged encyclopedias by choosing just Top-priority, just Top- and High-priority, etc. There are only about 1000 articles rated Top- or High-priority. A bibliography of works published by Peirce is not among the top 1000 highest-priority things for us to include in a mathematics encyclopedia.

The Peirce-article itself is rated High-priority, which is OK; this should be lower than that, because it would be reasonable to have an abridged encyclopedia with an article about Peirce but not a list of his works. I am going to change the priority to Mid-. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Mid" rating is "just right" being above the previous "low" priority and above the suggested "high" priority. The main Peirce article is very long, and it relies on this symbiotic and well-linked bibliography, imho. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note dead links here

The Peirce bibliography wiki contains many links. Please use this section to notify about dead links in the bibliography. (Also, please leave this section here near the top of the talk page). The Tetrast (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Notes & Queries

Jon Awbrey 14:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I'm dropping the ISBN's. If there were just one numb for each "book", that would be one thing, but I'm wasting way too much time and eyestrain trying to sort out the various hard-&-soft-cover variants, not to mention trying to track down numbs for definitive printings that I don't happen to have on hand. They also make for "cognitive resource intensive" (CRI) reading, especially when they sit next to a date of publication, flushing the short term memory buffer of the more important data thereof. Jon Awbrey 14:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: It may be useful to outline the general principles of citation that I am following in this bibliography. There are two main considerations that I have tried to keep in mind throughout, the first having to do with the character of the source material and the second having to with the human factors of online reading. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: (1) As with any writer who generates a complex primary literature — parts of which are published in his or her lifetime and reprinted multiple times afterwards, and parts of which are unpublished "humously" but published in multiple exhumations and subsequent redactions — and one who incites an equally complex secondary literature that develops over multiple centuries, the Peirce corpus demands a level of detail and organization that the style sheets appropriate to our more ephemeral research journals simply fail to anticipate. Procrustean attempts to fit a body of work to these styles of short-sheeting is bound to result in both destruction and distortion of bibliographic information. A style sheet that destroys or distorts substantial information is not a fit style sheet, and will not be used here. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN unnecessary

The common practice in Wiki to include ISBNs in references is plain silly. You don't need the ISBN when you go to the library, buy on Amazon, or place a special order in a bookstore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 07:44, February 15, 2006 (UTC)

JA: Response to unsigned remark above. Yes, I tend to agree. So far, I've preserved the ISBN's only in cases where it was necessary to refer to a particular set of volumes. Jon Awbrey 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the ISBN is an autolink to an index of library and commercial sources, a significant convenience for online searches. --Blainster 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation replacement

Joseph Ransdell brought to my attention that "W", not "CE" is the usual abbreviation for the Writings of Charles S. Peirce. A Chronological Edition". I see that the German Wikipedia Peirce bibliography page also uses "W" instead of "CE". So I'll replace, replace, replace. The Tetrast 12:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a disclaimer to the section "Wikipedia in other languages on Peirce"

The disclaimer: "These are not to be considered sources, but they sometimes contain bibliographic information regarding foreign-language works on Peirce and on translations of Peirce's works."

I hope that covers Armand's objections. The Tetrast 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, NOW I see what Armand meant about interwiki links in the main Peirce article. I had no idea that that list of languages on the side leads to foreign-language articles about Peirce. There needs to be something saying it to the reader like me who is not up on all the Wikipedia arcana The Tetrast 12:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Armand is right about interwikis, I've deleted the section

The Tetrast 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliografía Peirceana (2006). Huge, and plenty in English.

Grupo de Estudios Peirceanos (Jaime Nubiola et al.) Bibliografía Peirceana (2006). Huge, and plenty in English. I've just found it and there's plenty in there that I had not found yet. The Tetrast 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent link repairs

Just a few Google Book Search links were actually broken. Others, I found by testing, worked properly only when user's browser has javascript & java activated. (I generally arrange for Google Book Search links to work regardlessly of whether the browser has javascript & java activated. That's a URL issue. Accessibility of the links from outside the USA is a separate issue.) The Tetrast (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why "PSWS"?

I made up the abbreviation "PSWS" for Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic. I decided against "PS" and "PSW" because they might, for all I know, be in use for some other work or works by or about Peirce; and against "POS" because it is a common abbreviation for an obscene phrase. The Tetrast (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed "PS" has been used for the "Peirce Studies" series, and "PSW" could be taken to refer to Charles S. Peirce: Selected Writings. The Tetrast (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't paste in full table of contents of the Collected Papers from the German wiki

This bibliography wiki is already quite large, and pasting in the whole table of contents of the Collected Papers makes it ~~30KB~~ 23KB larger. That table of contents at the German wiki is already directly linked from this bibliography under "Collected Papers". It is redundant to paste it in here and that redundancy matters when the article is so long. The Tetrast (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Please note that tables of contents have been provided only when they are not otherwise easily found. For example, under the Essential Peirce there are links to the TOCs at the Peirce Edition Project. Likewise no attempt has been made to include, in the secondary bibliography, the full TOC of the journal Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, because that TOC is easily available through the link provided. The Tetrast (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not impose citation templates in CSP bibliography wiki

If used throughout the wiki, the citation templates would vastly increase the filesize of the wiki which is already large. Also they do not allow sub-bullets for multiple works by a single author, which sub-bulleting is part of what makes the secondary bibliography readable. Also they're time-consuming complicated to use and are excessively "one-size-fits-all". The Tetrast (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

i tags and em tags

The pairs of single quotation marks in Wikipedia markup are read as i tags by browsers. em tags are typed directly in Wikipedia markup in order to indicate actual vocal emphasis for automated screen readers used by people with impaired vision. Please do not replace em tags indicating vocal emphasis in the markup with pairs of single quotation marks. The Tetrast (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears that automated screen readers generally do NOT give any special treatment to em tags (nor to i(talics) tags, b(old) tags, strong tags, ins(ertion) tags, del(etion) tags, s(trike) tags). E.g., see http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=41 . Someone replaced the em tags in CSP bibliography with pairs of quotation marks, so stet. The Tetrast (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

dauben, havenel, and Matthew Moore

These three authors should be added here somewhere. Tkuvho (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the Havenel article quoted in the main Peirce wiki. Which other works specifically do you think should be added? I know that Matthew Moore's selection of Peirce's essays and another book are scheduled for publication. The Tetrast (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC). I.e., I mean that I will inevitably add both the Moore books since I've included every book in English focused on Peirce that I could find. The Tetrast (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Moore has some insightful articles on Peirce as well. Will they all be included in the new book? Dauben's articles on Peirce should be included also. Tkuvho (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which works specifically do you think should be added? The Tetrast (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Whatever appears in Havenel's bibliography, for sure. We can add more later. Tkuvho (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not just up and move page without discussing first on talk page.

Discuss it here.

Quincuncial projection

Which of these works introduces the Peirce quincuncial projection? I think that should be mentioned here. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peirce introduced the quincuncial projection in the US Coast Survey report for the year ending June 1877. In 1879 he did an article (linked at Peirce quincuncial projection in American Journal of Mathematics. I think that I'll have time to dig up info and links tomorrow. The Tetrast (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Big link repair

Google Books links have been able to take more than one form. I got in the habit of using those that specify page by "jtp=" (followed by page number) because that was the way to assure that the reader did not need to have Javascript activated in order for the link to work. I have just found that Google has discontinued that style of page specification. I have systematically replaced the "jtp=" string with the "pg=PA" string, which I find works whether or not Javascript is activated.

Sorry if the links were not working for a while. I had put a notice in the article to use the talk page to notify about broken links but some editor insisted on removing it because it's too "meta." The Tetrast (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for caring about people without JavaScript. Even better is to avoid Google Books altogether: Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia. Nemo 17:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Elements of Mathematics Table of contents (TOC)

I wish that an editor would list the Tables of Contents for the New Elements of Mathematics (by volumes, with correct ISBN --- and perhaps with incorrect but sometimes mis-stated ISBN!).

(The internet seems not to have the TOCs available, anywhere!)

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kiefer. I don't have a copy. Some time back, I tried to find the ISBNs online, but the online information about the volumes' ISBNs was contradictory, for example volumes 2 & 3 getting interchanged sometimes. The Tetrast (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Tetrast! If nobody gets inspired to add the TOC, then I'll ask interlibrary loan to borrow the books, and I can do it myself (groan ...). Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the volumes myself, I have added the ISBN numbers to the volumes. Note that the Library of Congress cataloging information includes an ISBN-10 number that differs from the ISBN-10 number listed below Mouton's copyright information (when the latter exists). Volume II has only the Library of Congress ISBN-10 number.

I used the Library of Congress ISBN converter to provide ISBN-13 numbers for the volumes, which as original research (of dubious use) are hidden comments.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Best regards, ðe olde The Tetrast (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]