The Categorization Project

Back   

2011-07-11
how to categorize edited volumes
Susanne Bobzien

University of Oxford

I've now been doing some sub-sub-sub-editing on vagueness for a while, and there is one main categorization difficulty I keep encountering: This is entries for the "edited volumes" on a subject with contributions by many individuals and for many individual subcategories.

I have so far put these into the "miscalleneous" categories. The alternative seemed to be putting them in each and every sub-category or couple of sub-categories for which they contain a paper, which can easily be up to fourteen. Neither seems quite right.

Do we have a policy of not listing the volumes but only the individual papers, which I missed? If not is there any policy for classifying edited volumes, and what is it? And if there is no policy, should there be one and if yes, what should it be?

Thanks.
Susanne
Reply

2011-07-11
how to categorize edited volumes
Reply to Susanne Bobzien
David Chalmers

Australian National University
New York University

Hi Susanne,

Thanks for this.  Usually edited volumes fit best in a misc category (e.g. "Vagueness, Misc") -- unless it's a tightly focused volume on the topic of a leaf category.   Our policy is to categorize both the volume and the papers within it.  Of course the papers will often be categorized more specifically, but there's no need for the volume to be categorized more specifically in addition.  We should update our editorial guidelines one of these days to clarify this and other matters.
Reply

2011-07-11
how to categorize edited volumes
Reply to David Chalmers
Susanne Bobzien

University of Oxford

Thanks, David.
Reply