Talk:Orson Scott Card bibliography

The "Women of Genesis" series

* ''[[Womens of Genesis - Sarah|Sarah]]'' (2000) * ''[[Womens of Genesis - Rebekah|Rebekah]]'' (2001) * ''[[Womensof Genesis - Rachel and Leah|Rachel and Leah]]'' (2004) * ''[[Womens of Genesis - The Wives of Israel|The Wives of Israel]]'' (forthcoming)

--> Are you sure it is "Womens"? And shouldn't, for uniformity's sake, the titles be something like [[Rebekah (Women of Genesis series)|Rebekah]]? I've just copied those red links to Heroines in literature but they do not look right to me. <KF> 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed per your suggestions. This was an easy fix since none of the articles for these books exist yet. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what the books are titled, but "Womens" is incorrect grammar. "Women" is plural. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, heres a source for the names: Amazon.com calls it "Sarah: Women of Genesis" "Rachel and Leah: Women of Genesis" and "Rebekah (Women of Genesis)" - Thanks a lot for the consistent naming Card:) ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Womens" is funnier. I say make it say that and leave it. Just kidding, of course. Professor Chaos 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wyrms

Wyrms is both a novel and a graphic novel. There are two listings. They should both point to different pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are the same story, they can be covered on the same page. Or do you mean that the graphic novel has the same name, but is not by Card? Any more information on the graphic novel? I can't find it on Amazon.com. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

They could be but there are already two pages. There is one for the novel and one for the comic book series. I didn't create either page. I was just saying that since there are separate pages for both of them there should be a link to both of them on this page since it is a listing of cards works. Pmcalduff (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it is already in the list (under "Other works"). It might've just gotten added; I don't know. But it's there. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion. When I made the comment that started this discussion it was because someone had deleted one of the two links to Wyrms thinking it was redundant. After I put the second link back in "Other works" myself, I made that note in hopes that it would prevent someone else from doing the same thing.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo?

this one

or this one

Cropped, out of context and obviously blown up and grainy as it is, in my opinion that picture of Card is laughably bad. He looks great in it, and I'm sure the full picture wouldn't be jarring - but this is jarring because he's leaning on an unseen someone's shoulder - whose? Probably the fellow who cropped and uploaded the picture. Isn't there anything out there that could be used instead under fair use? Or at least give us the full picture: hey look, this is me with Scott Card :) --Narfnarfsillywilly (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, anything's better than the bottom photo of him, which makes him look all wonky due to poor lighting. As for your other comments, I don't know if I agree. We want a photo of Card, not some anon fan. I agree it's poor because of the cropping, but the bottom photo, apparently an attempt to fix the issue of the top photograph—by getting a photo of Card alone—resulted in a worse photo. But if you still think we need the full photo, you'll have to contact the user who uploaded it in the first place. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Animated New Testament

I hold now in my hands one of the original Family Entertainment Network Video cassettes which claims an Orson Scott Card as it's storyboarder; is it this one :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.5.29 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

From the top

"This is a list of the works of Orson Scott Card. (This list does not include criticisms, reviews, or things of the related written by him). " - - - What does 'things of the related' mean ? - - - jg (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Formic Wars series

Should the Formic Wars books be separted from or left in the Ender's saga? - Dracuns (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Book list as table

What does everyone think about converting the list into a sortable table? Speaking from experience, it's must more useful and accessible that way. It could look something like this:

Title	Year	Series	Notes
Ender's Game	1985	Ender Saga	Hugo winner, Locus SF Award nominee, 1986; Nebula winner, 1985
Speaker for the Dead	1986	Ender Saga	Hugo, and Locus SF Award winner, Campell nominee, 1987; Nebula Award winner, 1986
Ender's War	1991	Ender Saga	Omnibus of Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead
Xenocide	1991	Ender Saga	Hugo and Locus SF Awards nominee, 1992
Children of the Mind	1996	Ender Saga

Books could still be grouped by series, but then the user could sort by other factors if they so desired (try it on table above). The columns are negotiable; the ones above are just initial suggestions. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "Locus SF Award nominee". It's a poll. The slot it placed in might be mentioned, but "nominee" is a plain factual error. And I see no reason to convert lists to tables like this, especially since the imposition of Visual Editor now makes it harder to edit the content for newer users. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't so much concerned with the content as the format, but okay. I just took it from the article. Thanks for the input. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that information in tables is good. Our lists generally start off as raw text because it's a lot easier to add information in that form (particularly for new or anon editors). But a largely content-complete list is generally best converted into table form. See most of WP:FL for examples. (I Arrived via the WP:BIB note. Am not watchlisting, ping me if followup needed. :) –Quiddity (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Quiddity. As it stands, I have one vote against and one for. The against vote was because it's hard for people using the new Visual Editor to edit. The vote for said essentially what I said--it's more useful in a sortable table--and provided some precedence. Given the precedence, and the fact that the list is nearly complete (as complete as it can be until Card authors some more works), I'm going to start converting it soon unless someone can convince me otherwise. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I converted the first section. As this progresses, however, I think it makes more sense to list the books chronologically or alphabetically. Users can still sort them by the series they belong to because of the Series column. Any preference on alpha vs. chrono? Is there a precedence? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest default to chronological, that way it initially carries additional information, by showing the progression of publication (rather than the arbitrary alphabetical-titles). And agreed, combining them into a single table, with a sortable "Series" column, is a good plan. Also, a column for "Type/Format" (or other keyword), so that things like (Anthologies/Plays/Collections/Column/etc) can be grouped together. (Check a few of Wikipedia:FL#Literature_and_theatre, there might be precedents to copy that and other ideas from). –Quiddity (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll probably convert the sections first, one by one, then combine them into one chronological table. I'm far too busy to do it all at once. Thanks again for the pointers! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Given there will be one big sortable wikitable:

Because wikitable sort capability is so limited, a single key, I suggest that the default be chronological by series (such as the current tables appended one after the other). If i understand correctly, that information is not available unless it is the default. The same is true of chronological by format, whereas sort by Year generates one comprehensive nearly-chronological list.)

Design should ensure that one-line listings are common, overflow only for long titles and long notes (only for those if screen size is at least medium width). Drop the saga, series, trilogy verbiage. Use short names of publishers.

Drop ISBN. Add publisher. Identify illustrator in notes.

2. [interjection 20 hours later] One big list does have limitations and they are serious for a writer with many works in series or many for at least two very different audiences, or many in at least two very different genres. That is why so many lists of works do present some series or some class(es) of children's books or some genres in sections; that is, sublists. --P64 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

One big challenge for a single list of works (or books or one-volume publications) --that is, integrated; no sublists-- is how to present information about series when many of the works are instalments of series. We have template {{main}} that fits layout in subsections by series, and I would have suggested a short blurb on each series if I had visited a week ago and given any thought to the matter. Bibliographies should not be devoid of prose, nor should main article links dispense with all text.

The same goes for information about audience level when there are many works at two or more levels (which may not be true here). Children's picture book may be handled as one Format. But children's novels below some level should be distinguished somehow. (The level where this feels urgent to me is beginning reader; primary school, K12 in USA today; ages 6–8 in the Smarties Prize scheme. But I would prefer to see children's books identified at some higher level. And some feel it is urgent to draw a line somewhere between Narnia and Harry Potter on the left, Gravity's Rainbow and Finnegan's Wake on the right.)

If there are only few or several works in series (not true here), or only few or several children's books in the selected sense (maybe true here), then each may be distinguished by in-line annotation, footNote, or in the Notes field here.

--P64 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I tracked all that:

• Sort in chronological order, but keep them separated by series (like they are now, more or less).
• I don't know what you mean by "that information is not available unless it is the default". If you mean what series they belong to, that's what the "saga" column is for, so you can sort by it.

Wikitables are sortable only by a single key, as far as I know. If so, then a wikitable reliably provides information sorted by multiple keys in one way only --namely, that which is displayed when the page is loaded. (I don't know how reliably, or how "intuitively" for visitors, a default chronological order is preserved as the table is re-sorted by Series; or Format; or Format, then Series; and so on. The performance may be better than I fear.) -P64

• I tried to include just essential information (one-line entries), but what displays depends on people's browser resolution, not something we can control. "Medium width" is a rather ambiguous term.

... The display must be extraordinarily wide for Series="Alvin Maker series" to display on one line, given current content of that subtable. -P64

• The "saga", "series" and "trilogy" verbiage was from the original list. I didn't add it; I don't care if it goes.
• I don't think publisher really matters and it could get problematic if there are several publishers for one book (like paperback vs. hardback vs. Kindle).
• I added the ISBN column because of the {{ISBN}} tag at the top of the article that some other editor added. Apparently it's important to someone, but I don't care one way or another.

Every title may have at least as many ISBN as publishers. WP:BIB evidently recommends both.

I suppose that the publisher named by Card in the primary entry for each book (OSC Publications) is the one to list; the one, if any, whose personnel worked with him at least a little. And the year given in the primary entry is the one to list here. -P64

• Illustrator identified in notes is fine with me, for those books that have them.
• Your next point you ask for prose. I didn't remove any; I included any prose that existed. But realize that adding prose may lead to overflow, which you said you wanted to avoid.

... The fact that a table does not accommodate prose (or provide cross-references so clearly as do {main article} section hatnotes) is a limitation, and a severe one where the list covers material that is well-suited to subdivision. In yesterday's comment I have inserted numeral "1." and one full paragraph that begins "2.", which clarifies the break, or change of subject. -P64

• If you like, you can restore the {{main}} links to articles on series. I removed them because I was planning on converting the lists to one big list eventually, wherein we couldn't have them.
• Card writes books for many different audiences. I agree would should come up with a way to consistently label them, but this may prove difficult given that many of his books are suitable for multiple audiences. For example, Ender's Game is appropriate for young teens and adults alike.

... Card does not distinguish any of his books by audience level

(OSC Publications, pp. 1–17); nor by genre except Dramatic Works, pp. 34–35. This may be no issue for his bibliography. The wordlet "illus" appears only three times, all for special editions of short fiction if i understand correctly. That too may be no issue here. --P64 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Did I reiterate all your desires correctly?

I still lean towards the single list for the reasons given by Quiddity first response above, but let's see if we can reconcile all our desires. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 02:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(continued) Since this is a bibliography it is reasonable to consult WP:BIB and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Author bibliographies in particular. The preceding section Topical;Examples does endorse wikitable as one format. The problem for table design here is horizontal space inevitably dedicated to Series and Notes. --P64 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so what do you suggest a line of your new proposed table look like? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 03:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

SF awards source

first of multiple new sections

The Science Fiction Awards Database (sfadb.com) is nearly a year old, successor to the Locus Index to SF Awards. Perhaps it can replace Worlds Without End, providing greater reliability, better background linkage (what is this award?), or less repetition in references. I haven't examined it yet. --P64 (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

last of two new sections posted at once

I think detailed coverage of Pseudonyms belongs here rather than in the biography, Orson Scott Card#Pseudonyms, where we identify seven of them.

Two of those seven pseud. are in ISFDB for Card[1] with one short fiction each; namely, the last of many items we list for Byron Walley (should be 1981) and the one item we list for Noam D. Pellume. ISFDB also lists one essay by Brother Orson, pseud. #8 if all do pass muster.

We identify five more in the biography, used once each if i understand correctly --Frederick Bliss and P.Q. Gump for literary criticism or history, Brian Green for a play, Dinah Kirkham for a short story, Scott Richards for a novel.

None of the pseudonymous works is listed here. Two evidently belong in the current set of tables, the play by Green and the novel by Richards.

I don't know whether short fiction and essays should or will be listed here. My general section is that known pseudonyms of Orson Scott Card should be covered here in prose before the beginning of the list. --P64 (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

How Tolkein Means

How Tolkein Means by Orson Scott Card is an essay which appeared in Meditations on Middle-Earth, edited by karen hater, published by St. Martin's Press, New York, 2001. His contribution here seems to me similar to his contribution to The Great Snape Debate which is listed in "other projects." -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Feijoada (American Style)

Card contributed to a sort of cook book. Contributors told stories about recipes and then shared the recipe. Saints Well Seasoned, Musings on How Food Nourishes Us: Body, Heart and Soul, edited by Linda Hoffman Kimball, 1998. -ErinHowarth (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The (Formic Wars) series

Regarding to an earlier comment regarding the series Formic Wars:

Should the Formic Wars books be separted from or left in the Ender's saga? - Dracuns (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be better to seperate the Formic Wars.

Actually,

• either the Ender Saga, the Shadow Saga and the Formic Wars should be 3 separate subsections of one (primary) section Ender's Game (series)?
• or every book in the Ender's Game series should be combined in one table, with the notion of each series when applicable:
  1. Ender Series (or plain Ender Saga),
  2. Shadow Series (or plain Shadow Saga) and
  3. Formic Wars Series (or plain Formic Wars)

Thus without the exact same link (to main article) in two (or more) seperate sections.

The short stories are basicly all connected to the Ender Saga (or not, the prequel short stories can also be considered as stand-alone)

Also, since every series (still) has his own section, (apart from books in the Enderverse), what is the use of the column 'Series'?

And Columns, On writing and Non-fiction aren't Series, are they? Clockworkske (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merged to Orson Scott Card bibliography#Mayflower, which has a clear wikilink to Lovelock (novel). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Mayflower (series) into Orson Scott Card bibliography#Mayflower. There is no need for a separate article which contains no information that could not be incorporated concisely into the bibliography. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with the proposed merger. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, but I think a merger with Lovelock is more plausible

1. The page for the second instalment Rasputin no longer exist.
2. Lovelock is now listed as a Standalone Book over on the Library at Hatrack, while the Bibliography is quite outdated
3. This added to the fact that co-author Kathryn H. Kidd died in 2015.

This Bibliograpy should also reflect that the trilogy series is buried with the co-author (I'm afraid) Clockworkske (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section on pseudonyms?

I've been removing information about Card's pseudonyms from his main page since it is overly detailed. Would it be appropriate to have a section for it here? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Micropowers series

"Lost and Found" and Duplex are a series. Davidkasdan (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)