Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Same Title Multiple Authors"

From Romance Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Creating Page & Moving Page: first attempt made.)
(→‎Creating Page & Moving Page: edited, rearranged, looks good)
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
::First crack taken. Lemme know what you think. --[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 16:57, 4 October 2007 (PDT)
 
::First crack taken. Lemme know what you think. --[[User:DawnBurn|DawnBurn]] 16:57, 4 October 2007 (PDT)
 +
 +
:::I deleted some of the repetition (mine), added some and rearranged so that this moving stuff comes first. I think it looks pretty good, but we should look at it again in a few days and see if it still makes sense! --[[User:Kay T|Kay T]] 19:41, 4 October 2007 (PDT)

Revision as of 02:41, 5 October 2007

History

For what it is worth, when we first started encountering more than one book by the same title, we usually found it when we added a book to the book page, or when we pasted a list of books into an author's page, saw a blue link and were disappointed to see it was a book by a different author. At that time, our solution was to make a new page for the new book (the [[book title - author name]]), and list it on the Books page as two books with the same title. Leigh started creating the Books - Same Title disambiguation pages when she was adding info on the various numbered series and started coming up with lots of the same titles. So you will find a legacy of lots of entries on the book pages, author pages, and book pages where there has not been a disamb page created. I usually used the # and number to give a bigger target to click on. Others did not. --Kay T 13:30, 7 September 2007 (PDT)

I don't mind the # and I didn't mean to imply that it was wrong. I was noting it for when I (or someone else) went back to continue to evolve Romancewiki. Thanks for the history. I figured it was something like that. Wikis tend to evolve slowly and as needed. Then once the evolution has happened there is a whole bunch of 'fixing' to old stuff to do. It is a never ending process that keeps me occupied while at work. =) --DawnBurn 14:26, 7 September 2007 (PDT)

Creation

This was created to hopefully allow other readers/wiki'ers to create pages. I made it a Help file instead of in the main, but I think all the help files are in the main. Feedback welcome. I'm going to try to figure out if I can create templates for the Disamb. page and/or the visual flags that Wiki uses for the fixing old links instead of the Category addition. But I'm not sure where that will go. --DawnBurn 15:48, 31 August 2007 (PDT)

Wow, good work, Dawn. I tried to clarify the difference between "creating" the disamb page and what goes into the page. You need a link to the page to "create" it. Unfortunatley, most people are going to find themselves in this position when they go to the Books page and see a book already exists with that title. I think we have to start from the very beginning and really go step by step. It is still confusing (or daunting), but I think you have made this pretty clear. Maybe someone else can comment on this. --Kay T 14:10, 1 September 2007 (PDT)
Thanks KayT. I think you did a good job at clarifying. My only note would be usually the page that is to become the disambugation page is already created. Because it is the naked title which is someone's usual first attempt at adding a book of that title. So to me, adding the extra info on the Books page isn't creating the to-become-Disambugation page, it's creating the page(s) that you'll be transferring info to. --DawnBurn 01:26, 3 September 2007 (PDT)
okay, I tried to make a further intro as to when one might find the problem, and then point to the part of the page where the instructions are found. Sometimes trying to explain every possibility makes it more confusing, but I think this works. I did not go through and see if the order of the headings still makes sense. Maybe rearrange? --Kay T 13:19, 3 September 2007 (PDT)
Kay T, I think you did a good job. I'm trying to decide if keeping the Books Page Section separate or not. It is covered under the creating a disambugation page, but at the same time, I don't think it hurts to have it again in a place where someone might only look there. I also added in the Template:Same Title substitution code to the article. --DawnBurn 13:00, 4 September 2007 (PDT)

The template looks good. Thanks. I think I will come backt to this page later after I have forgotten how to do it myself and see if it makes sense! --Kay T 15:57, 4 September 2007 (PDT)

Notes from Talk Page

I created Help:Same Title Multiple Authors and edited Book Template to try and recommend the format discussed below and to also encourage others to use the Category and create the pages. Please take a look. --DawnBurn 15:51, 31 August 2007 (PDT)

Dawn, thanks so much for getting this page started! It's been on my to-do list forever, but, as you can see, there's always something ahead of actual progress. You clearly have an organized mind (mine, lately, has resembled a jigsaw puzzle with key pieces lost forever) and I soooo appreciate you take the time to write "help" for the various tricky aspects of the wiki. I saw your conversation with KayT about using various wiki formats. We settled on MediaWiki because it seemed to have the best documentation, but I have to admit I was surprised at the various products available.--Romancewiki 10:03, 2 September 2007 (PDT)
I'm so glad you like what I've done so far. I'm only organized about stuff that it isn't necessarily my job to be organized about. I love MediaWiki format, so it works great for me. --DawnBurn 01:21, 3 September 2007 (PDT)

Creating Page & Moving Page

In the current write up I had people put the current entry of the title into a text editor. Really, the page should be moved (my fault, I wasn't doing that before) to the correct [[Title - Author Name]] page and then the redirect replaced with the disamb page information. However, I think that is something pretty complex to put here. Thoughts? --DawnBurn 20:18, 27 September 2007 (PDT)

The benefit of moving instead of copy&pasting is that you get the edit history moved along with the page. (In most cases this is not crucial.) I don't think that moving is that much more complicated than the current instructions, so I say we go for it. I like your "if too hard..." solution, maybe we could come up with something if the whole thing is too complicated? You want to take a first crack? --Kay T 10:23, 28 September 2007 (PDT)
First crack taken. Lemme know what you think. --DawnBurn 16:57, 4 October 2007 (PDT)
I deleted some of the repetition (mine), added some and rearranged so that this moving stuff comes first. I think it looks pretty good, but we should look at it again in a few days and see if it still makes sense! --Kay T 19:41, 4 October 2007 (PDT)