Help talk:Book Template - Revision history

Kay T: /* By The Numbers: Should link be to publisher AND series? */ another heading

2007-10-12T19:18:22Z

By The Numbers: Should link be to publisher AND series?: another heading

Kay T: tried to put headings so we could find the topics

2007-10-12T19:16:39Z

tried to put headings so we could find the topics

DawnBurn: /* By the Numbers? */

2007-10-02T00:02:43Z

By the Numbers?

Kay T at 23:58, 1 October 2007

2007-10-01T23:58:40Z

Leigh at 22:45, 1 October 2007

2007-10-01T22:45:38Z

Kay T: no problem, should we put it other places?

2007-10-01T01:54:33Z

no problem, should we put it other places?

DawnBurn: /* By the Numbers? */ no space after #

2007-10-01T01:49:34Z

By the Numbers?: no space after #

DawnBurn: /* By the Numbers? */

2007-09-29T23:37:24Z

By the Numbers?

Kay T: /* By the Numbers? */

2007-09-29T21:56:34Z

By the Numbers?

Romancewiki at 17:44, 29 September 2007

2007-09-29T17:44:04Z

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 :::I tend to type in "wiki code" so automatically that the extra keystrokes don't even register. Plus, I sort of cheat and use concatenation functions in Excel to add various code elements when I'm working on large chunks of content. This lets me get lots of formatting out of the way before I even start. Yeah, crazy much?--[[User:Romancewiki|Romancewiki]] 10:44, 29 September 2007 (PDT)
 So, it looks like
 <blockquote style="background-color: white; color: black; border:1px solid black; padding: 1em;">

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
-== By the Numbers? ==
+== By the Numbers? What should we link to?==
 So I've been going through entries and maybe this would be better off on the [[Help talk:Style Manual]] page, but I wanted a little more of a call out.
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 Leigh - the link to a year like this <nowiki>[[1975]]</nowiki> was in the template at the begining, but it didn't really accomplish what we wanted - a category or list of all titles that came out in 1975. It just linked to an "article" page about 1975 (which we never created). It was replaced by the [[:category:1975 Releases]] idea. I played around with making the year in the body of the article a category, but that did not work. --[[User:Kay T|Kay T]] 16:45, 25 September 2007 (PDT)
 ::Yeah, I had started putting the <nowiki>[[:category:Year Releases|Year]]</nowiki> in that space when I noticed you guys doing it (for instance, most of the Everlasting Love books are set up that way), but I stopped when I realized it was going to just be the plain year without a link.  Going back and changing those now.  It doesn't really matter to me, as long as I know.
 ::One more reason why I prefer the existing By The Numbers way as the standard: when we create a page for a new series, the pages for the books in those series would have to be linked to the general By The Numbers pages, since they haven't been broken down into 1-100, 101-200, etc. yet as the series hasn't reached more than 100 and may not.  Then, when the series crosses 100 titles, the By the Numbers page would be broken down into multiples of hundreds, and the pages themselves would have to be changed as well.  Again, using the Everlasting Love line as an example.  As you said, laziness isn't the best reason for anything, but it does seem like a lot of unnecessary work.  JMO!--[[User:Leigh|Leigh]]
@@ Line 55: / Line 56: @@
 ::I think it should probably go both places. once we get it sorted. --[[User:Kay T|Kay T]] 10:01, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
-:::I think/though it had been sorted.  Romancewiki & Leigh both have good reasons to why it should be the former usage and not my suggestion, beyond just work & laziness.  So I would now vote against myself. --[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 15:31, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
+:::I think/thought it had been sorted.  Romancewiki & Leigh both have good reasons to why it should be the former usage and not my suggestion, beyond just work & laziness.  So I would now vote against myself. --[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 15:31, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
 ::::This made me laugh, Dawn! I am one who believes that lazy people are naturally efficient, so it's a fine reason to raise a question.--[[User:Romancewiki|Romancewiki]] 10:44, 29 September 2007 (PDT)
@@ Line 63: / Line 64: @@
 ::::::Well, it is a lot more than two, but yah.  Having it sorted means that I will be correct in the future an dtry to catch a lot of the stuff I misdid.  Not 1000s, but probably dozens.--[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 16:37, 29 September 2007 (PDT)
-----
+===By The Numbers: Should link be to publisher AND series? ===
 Okay now I have another question.
@@ Line 89: / Line 90: @@
 So, it looks like
+<blockquote style="background-color: white; color: black; border:1px solid black; padding: 1em;">
-*<nowiki>([[Intimate Moments|Silhouette Intimate Moments]] [[Intimate Moments By The Numbers|#318]])</nowiki> which appears the same by contains two links.
+*<nowiki>([[Intimate Moments|Silhouette Intimate Moments]] [[Intimate Moments By The Numbers|#318]])</nowiki> which appears the same but contains two links.
 *([[Intimate Moments|Silhouette Intimate Moments]] [[Intimate Moments By The Numbers|#318]])
 is the consensus. --[[User:Kay T|Kay T]] 14:56, 29 September 2007 (PDT)
-----
 Just a quick note for my edit.  I think that
@@ Line 112: / Line 115: @@
 ::::I don't know that it truly matters then.  I prefer without because it is how I'm used to seeing #blah written but I can see the cramped objection.  --[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 17:02, 1 October 2007 (PDT)
-==Book Template Adjustments ==
+==Book Template Amazon link ==
 (moved from [[User talk:DawnBurn]]
@@ Line 134: / Line 137: @@
 ::::Thanks for the new template! I think that is the best solution (the comment out would probably be too confusing for non-techies). --[[User:Kay T|Kay T]] 16:37, 4 September 2007 (PDT)
-== Another Question ==
+== Amazon link - colon or dash? ==
 The Amazon link on the template is set up this way
 * '''Amazon Listing''' - [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/PUTISBNNUMBERHERE/ref=nosim/103-3685024-2000659?n=283155 BOOKTITLE HERE]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 2 October 2007
Line 110:		Line 110:
	:::I don't really care. I like the space. I would like to emphasize that we should not be "fixing" lots of pages just for the space. Going forward, it would not matter to me if some had a space and some did not. This might be getting too detailed! --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 16:58, 1 October 2007 (PDT)		:::I don't really care. I like the space. I would like to emphasize that we should not be "fixing" lots of pages just for the space. Going forward, it would not matter to me if some had a space and some did not. This might be getting too detailed! --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 16:58, 1 October 2007 (PDT)

		+	::::I don't know that it truly matters then. I prefer without because it is how I'm used to seeing #blah written but I can see the cramped objection. --[[User:DawnBurn\|DawnBurn]] 17:02, 1 October 2007 (PDT)

	==Book Template Adjustments ==		==Book Template Adjustments ==

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 :No problem (although we were certainly editing at the same time). But I can't figure out if it needs to be other places (like the style manual) and where that would be. It seems like it would come up a lot, but -- do you want to add the discussion elsewhere? Is it clear as I wrote it? --[[User:Kay T|Kay T]] 18:54, 30 September 2007 (PDT)
 ::Is this going to be part of the standard now, or are we discussing it?  Because personally, I prefer the space (and have been putting it in almost all the time), because #99 all together looks too cramped to my eye.  But I'll go along with the consensus. -- [[User:Leigh|Leigh]]
 ==Book Template Adjustments ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 1 October 2007
Line 106:		Line 106:

	:No problem (although we were certainly editing at the same time). But I can't figure out if it needs to be other places (like the style manual) and where that would be. It seems like it would come up a lot, but -- do you want to add the discussion elsewhere? Is it clear as I wrote it? --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 18:54, 30 September 2007 (PDT)		:No problem (although we were certainly editing at the same time). But I can't figure out if it needs to be other places (like the style manual) and where that would be. It seems like it would come up a lot, but -- do you want to add the discussion elsewhere? Is it clear as I wrote it? --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 18:54, 30 September 2007 (PDT)
		+	::Is this going to be part of the standard now, or are we discussing it? Because personally, I prefer the space (and have been putting it in almost all the time), because #99 all together looks too cramped to my eye. But I'll go along with the consensus. -- [[User:Leigh\|Leigh]]

	==Book Template Adjustments ==		==Book Template Adjustments ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 1 October 2007
Line 104:		Line 104:

	Specifically, no space between # and the actual number. --[[User:DawnBurn\|DawnBurn]] 18:49, 30 September 2007 (PDT)		Specifically, no space between # and the actual number. --[[User:DawnBurn\|DawnBurn]] 18:49, 30 September 2007 (PDT)
		+
		+	:No problem (although we were certainly editing at the same time). But I can't figure out if it needs to be other places (like the style manual) and where that would be. It seems like it would come up a lot, but -- do you want to add the discussion elsewhere? Is it clear as I wrote it? --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 18:54, 30 September 2007 (PDT)

	==Book Template Adjustments ==		==Book Template Adjustments ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 1 October 2007
Line 94:		Line 94:

	is the consensus. --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 14:56, 29 September 2007 (PDT)		is the consensus. --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 14:56, 29 September 2007 (PDT)
		+	----
		+	Just a quick note for my edit. I think that
		+
		+	[[Intrigue]] [[Harlequin Intrigue By The Numbers\|#99]]
		+
		+	looks better than
		+
		+	[[Intrigue]] [[Harlequin Intrigue By The Numbers\|# 99]]
		+
		+	Specifically, no space between # and the actual number. --[[User:DawnBurn\|DawnBurn]] 18:49, 30 September 2007 (PDT)

	==Book Template Adjustments ==		==Book Template Adjustments ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:37, 29 September 2007
Line 60:		Line 60:

	:::::Plus, being "sorted" also means having time! If this is fresh in your mind, go ahead and make the changes on both pages (unless you already did that). I was just not really following too closely, and at work, so not ready to try to make the changes myself. (still not). --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 14:56, 29 September 2007 (PDT)		:::::Plus, being "sorted" also means having time! If this is fresh in your mind, go ahead and make the changes on both pages (unless you already did that). I was just not really following too closely, and at work, so not ready to try to make the changes myself. (still not). --[[User:Kay T\|Kay T]] 14:56, 29 September 2007 (PDT)
		+
		+	::::::Well, it is a lot more than two, but yah. Having it sorted means that I will be correct in the future an dtry to catch a lot of the stuff I misdid. Not 1000s, but probably dozens.--[[User:DawnBurn\|DawnBurn]] 16:37, 29 September 2007 (PDT)

	----		----

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 :::I think/though it had been sorted.  Romancewiki & Leigh both have good reasons to why it should be the former usage and not my suggestion, beyond just work & laziness.  So I would now vote against myself. --[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 15:31, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
 ----
@@ Line 77: / Line 79: @@
 ::True, but that one just seems off.  Most of the time the publisher isn't linked directly over the imprint in non number imprints ([[Luna]] imprint of [[Harlequin]], but usually just linked as [[Luna]] or [[Luna|Luna Books]]).  So I don't think that solution is reflective of the other non numbered series standards. --[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 15:31, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
 ==Book Template Adjustments ==