Talk:Books before 1900: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
JohnnyAdams (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Lucy Broadwood's "English Traditional Songs and Carols" has been submitted in this category. However, as is quite correctly shown, it was not published until 1908. The date of collection of the songs is a secondary factor, as the category title makes it quite clear that the deciding criterion is the actual date of publication. In the circumstances in my opinion this book should correctly be allocated to the post-1900 section. | Lucy Broadwood's "English Traditional Songs and Carols" has been submitted in this category. However, as is quite correctly shown, it was not published until 1908. The date of collection of the songs is a secondary factor, as the category title makes it quite clear that the deciding criterion is the actual date of publication. In the circumstances in my opinion this book should correctly be allocated to the post-1900 section. | ||
--[[User:Irene Shettle|Irene Shettle]] 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) | --[[User:Irene Shettle|Irene Shettle]] 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
That's a fair point. I would suggest putting it in the pre 1900 section with the inclusion of a phrase like "...although not published until 1908, the contents relate to 19th findings" or something like that. | |||
In addition, I think that the date divisions need revisiting to consider how to cope with anomalies like this. | |||
--[[User:JohnnyAdams|JohnnyAdams]] 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:57, 20 November 2007
Lucy Broadwood's "English Traditional Songs and Carols" has been submitted in this category. However, as is quite correctly shown, it was not published until 1908. The date of collection of the songs is a secondary factor, as the category title makes it quite clear that the deciding criterion is the actual date of publication. In the circumstances in my opinion this book should correctly be allocated to the post-1900 section. --Irene Shettle 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I would suggest putting it in the pre 1900 section with the inclusion of a phrase like "...although not published until 1908, the contents relate to 19th findings" or something like that.
In addition, I think that the date divisions need revisiting to consider how to cope with anomalies like this. --JohnnyAdams 12:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)