Talk:Biographies of Authors (series)

Revisiting with
Recently I've been using and its lovely   variable to make our citations of  more specific across many articles. Given the preponderance of redlinks on this page, it made me wonder: rather than treating Biographies of Authors as individual stories within a series within an anthology within a series, could we just cite  rather than  ? – n8 (☎) 20:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this necessitate us treating Biographies as one unit, thus being valid or invalid as a whole? (And, tbh, I do mean to write these, I just honestly got so depressed when I realized that I had to re-write my summary for First Draft that it made me lose a lot of motivation for summaries. I keep meaning to get back to it. I just fundamentally feel I don't understand that story.) Najawin ☎  20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not thrilled with the proposal, though I see where it's coming from. Citation is only part of the issue: there's also the mix of valid and non-valid entries, and, bluntly, the fact that they all have different authors. Surely it's more legible to each give them their own short page and infobox than to have a single page whose "Writer=" infobox field contains an unwieldy list of names… Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 20:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "the fact that they all have different authors" – to the contrary, 11* of the 13 entries we (will) cover were written by Simon Bucher-Jones. This makes it roughly comparable to A Hundred Words from a Civil War, which was ~90% written by Philip Purser-Hallard but also included contributions from a much larger number of other authors. But the point about the mix of valid and invalid is well taken; while I think that problem could be easily surmounted with a bit of creative thinking, I agree it's not purely trivial. – n8 (☎) 19:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)