Talk:Terence Reese bibliography

Order of table listings
The table listing source data is ordered by date of first publication, then by co-authors. New entries and entries affected by edits to the date of first publication should be relocated in the source listing to facilitate subsequent editing. --Newwhist (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reese & Dormer, The Play of the Cards
Hi, Newwhist. I have the paperback 1991 edition whose title page gives ISBN 0-7090-4341-4; your listing is ISBN same-6. As I read the Foreword this is a paperback reprint of the second edition 1977 ("This book is now published for the first time in a hardback edition ...") and the minor changes are distinguish the 1977 from the first edition 1967 ("It has been shortened ..."). The Foreword footnote may be useful for the last column of your table: "The natural successors to this work are Reese on Play and The Expert Game, both published by Robert Hale." --P64 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are two ISBN number formats - the 10 digit and the 13 digit which are unique and mutually inclusive.  The 10 digit version of the code for this book is 0-7090-4341-4 and the 13 digit version is 978-0-7090-4341-6; the difference is the 978 perefix and a derived new last digit (the check digit).  See http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp  .  All which means that the book in the list is the same one you have.  Good idea to add the extra notes from the forward though.  I have also added the original 10 digit ISBN since it is the one in the book (I do not have it and rely on your say so).  When first compiling the bibliography, I resisted adding both versions of the ISBN numbers to each book listing but it looks like it will get done over time by all the editors at large.  --Newwhist (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of cover images
A question has been raised about the use of cover images in "lists". My question is "Is a detailed bibliography a 'list' as intended by the policy? Points of view? Newwhist (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Discographies, which often have similar levels of detail as this article, have long been required to work without non-free images. I don't really see what makes this article different from any of our other list articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Being new, I am not as thoroughly knowledgeable about the policy as you purport to be but I will investigate and note my conclusion at a later date. This is not a major issue for me but I will not be bullied.  In the interim I can only say that it is rude of you to make another revert without a debate, as I had requested.  According to the recent Wiki survey, this type of behaviour is one of the the reasons that so many good faith editors leave Wikipedia. Best regards.  Newwhist (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)